JUDGMENT : G.K. Mitter, J. In this group of appeals the common question of law is, whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits for eviction. 2. The facts in Civil Appeals 331-334/1967 are as follows. Premises XIV/291-93 situate in Post Office Street Sadar Bazar Delhi was an evacuee property which had been acquired by the Central Government and formed part of the compensation pool. It was sold by public auction on November 14, 1958 and respondent, Attar Lal, who made the highest bid was accepted as the auction purchaser by the Managing Officer. The appellants were all tenants of different portions of the property. On March 19, 1959 the Managing Officer addressed a communication to each of the tenants in the following terms : "Sub. - Provisional possession of property No. XIV/352-54/291-93 sold on......... in........... Whereas it has been decided to give provisional possession of the abovesaid property to Shri Attar Lal s/o Murli Dass............... R/o............ the auction-purchaser of the property, you are hereby directed to pay rent to him and deal otherwise with him direct with effect from 20.2.1959. 2. You are further advised, in our own interest, to pay arrears of the previous period immediately to this office to avail your-self of the protection from ejectment in terms of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, read with the relevant notification in this behalf, failing which you may render yourself, liable to eviction." Sd/- Managing Officer, Ward XIII-2" The auction-purchaser, respondent in all the appeals, received copies of the communication. In August and September 1959 the respondent filed suits for eviction of the appellants in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi. The averments in the plaint were : (1) That after the acceptance of his bid the plaintiff was put in-provisional possession and the defendant was asked to pay rent to him from February 20, 1959 and otherwise treat him as his landlord; (2) that the defendant was a tenant for the Custodian at a monthly rent and by operation of law he became a tenant of the plaintiff from 20th February, 1959; and (3) that no sale certificate had been granted to the plaintiff and the property still vested in the Central Government and so the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, did not apply to the facts of the case. All the defendants raised the same kind of objections in their written statements. They pleaded inter alia that; (1) no transfer of the property having been effected in favour of the plaintiff, he could not avail himself of the benefit of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954; and (2) the property still vested in the Central Government and the plaintiff had acquired no rights whatever in the property and had therefore no right to sue the defendants. 3. The trial Court framed various issues including the maintainability of the suit in the absence of the plaintiff having obtained the sale certificate and the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. Holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain a claim for ejectment without obtaining a sale certificate the prayer for eviction was refused but decrees for area of rent were passed. It is to be noted that suits for ejectment had been filed after the service of notices to quit under the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent went up in appeal to the District Judge at Delhi urging among other grounds that. "On the approval of the bid there sprang up into being a binding contract for the sale of the property to him x x x x the appellant acquired substantial rights in the property, which became still mere definite when after payment of the purchase price in full the provisional possession of the property was handed over to the appellant with intimation to the tenants and their acceptance of the same. The Government thus divested itself of the possession of the property and vested the same in the appellant and the tenants like the respondent held thence forward the property in their occupation not under the Government but under the plaintiff-appellant." The District Judge dismissed the appeals. Further appeals were then preferred to the High Court of Punjab. The learned Single Judge of the High Court referred to the Division Bench the question "whether an auction purchaser of evacuee property who had not yet obtained a sale certificate but to whom the occupier had attorned, could under the ordinary law, maintain a suit for ejectment." The Division Bench answered the question in the affirmative. The learned Single Judge of the High Court referred to the Division Bench the question "whether an auction purchaser of evacuee property who had not yet obtained a sale certificate but to whom the occupier had attorned, could under the ordinary law, maintain a suit for ejectment." The Division Bench answered the question in the affirmative. The learned Single Judge who heard the Second appeals thereafter dismissed the appeals but granted a certificate of fitness for the matters being heard by a Letters Patent Appeal. These Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of by a common judgment rendered on May 4, 1964. The learned Judge of the Division Bench held that the premises in dispute were not governed by the proviso to Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and in that view of the matter held that the suits were properly tried by the civil Court in the first instance and decrees could be passed according to law. It is this decision which is being challenged in the appeals to this Court. 4. It is first necessary to note some provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which applied to the premises in question. This was an Act to provide for the payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displayed persons and for matters connected therewith. Section 2 defined inter alia "compensation pool" and Evacuee Property" Section 3 defined the powers of various officers including Managing Officers. Section 12 gave the Central Government the power to acquire evacuee property for a public purpose being a purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons including the payment of compensation to such persons and on the publication of a notification sub-section (1) of Section 12, "the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the notification shall, on and from the beginning of the date on which the notification was published, vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all emcumbranes". Under Section 14 the Central Government might take measures considered necessary for the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool. Under Section 20 the Managing Officer was authorised to transfer any property out of the compensation pool by sale of such property inter alia to a displaced person. Under Section 14 the Central Government might take measures considered necessary for the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool. Under Section 20 the Managing Officer was authorised to transfer any property out of the compensation pool by sale of such property inter alia to a displaced person. Section 29(1) provided : "Where any person to whom the provisions of this section apply, is in lawful possession of any immovable property of the class notified under sub-section (2), which is transferred to another person under the provisions of the this Act, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, such person shall, without prejudice to any other right which he may have in the property, be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held the property immediately before the transfer : xx xx xx xx." By sub-section (2) the Central Government was authorised to specify the class of persons to whom and the class of immovable property in the compensation pool, other than agricultural land, in respect of which provisions of this section were to apply and "in issuing any such notification the Central Government was to have regard to the matters specified. 5. The effect of sub-section (1) is that on transfer of immovable property the person in possession was to be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise as those on which he held the property immediately before the transfer. The section therefore gave the transferee the right to collect the rent of the property and to pursue his other remedies, if any, against the tenant. Where the tenant was a monthly tenant he could terminate the tenancy by a notice to quit and file a suit for ejectment, unless the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 stood in his way. The object of this Act was to provide for the control of rents and evictions and of rates of hotels and lodging houses etc. The Act was however not to apply to certain premises and section 3 of the Act provides : "Nothing in this Act shall apply........... The object of this Act was to provide for the control of rents and evictions and of rates of hotels and lodging houses etc. The Act was however not to apply to certain premises and section 3 of the Act provides : "Nothing in this Act shall apply........... (a) to any premises belonging to Government; or (b) to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of the premises taken on lease, on requisitioned, by the Government; Provided that where any premises belonging to Government have been or are lawfully let by any person by virtue of an agreement with the Government or otherwise, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, the provisions of this Act shall apply to such tenancy." Clause (b) has no application to the facts of this case but arguments turned on Clause (a) read with the proviso. According to the appellants the premises did not belong to Government within the meaning of Clause (a) and assuming it did it was covered by the proviso which made the Act applicable to the tenancies. 6. Normally an auction-purchaser does not acquire title to property before he pays the purchase money and obtains a document of transfer in his favour but the case of a transfer by the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules thereunder stand on a different footing. In Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1994 where the facts were very similar, it was held by this Court that the title to the property passed to the auction purchaser on the date of confirmation of sale and was not in abeyance till the issue of the certificate and that the certificate when issued related back to the date when the sale became absolute. It was said :- "The sale certificate, though issued later mentioned the date of the confirmation of the sale in his favour. The tenant was asked to attorn to the purchaser from the date of confirmation of sale and thus possession was also delivered on that day. Title, therefore, was not in abeyance till the certificate was issued but passed on the conformation of sale. The tenant was asked to attorn to the purchaser from the date of confirmation of sale and thus possession was also delivered on that day. Title, therefore, was not in abeyance till the certificate was issued but passed on the conformation of sale. The intention behind the rules appears to be that title shall pass when the full price is realised and this is now clear from the new form of the certificate.......... No doubt till the price is paid in full there is no claim to the property, what it seems somewhat strange that a person who has paid the price in full and in whose favour the sale is also confirmed and who is placed in possession should only acquire title to the property from the date on which a certificate is issued to him." That the reasoning holds good in the case before us and it must be held.......... there being no dispute that the sale certificate was issued subsequently..... that the premises ceased to belong to the Government and there is no scope for the application of the proviso. As the Act applies to the premises, proceedings for eviction could only be taken under Section 14 of the Act by presenting an application to the Controller. Even if it were assumed that the premises belonged to Government it would have to be held in the circumstances of the case, that it was lawfully let by the respondent to the appellants inasmuch as the Managing Officer's giving "provisional possession of the property to the respondent" would really mean delivering symbolical possession of the property to him with the result that a direction on the appellants to pay rent to him would in effect amount to a direction to attorn to him. We are not impressed by the argument that 'letting' within the meaning of proviso can only apply to a voluntary act on the part of the landlord allowing the former tenant to continue in possession. Acting in pursuance of the direction of the Managing Officer after the property had been auctioned to the respondent would in law amount to a letting by the respondents the persons who were tenants under the custodian before. 7. Acting in pursuance of the direction of the Managing Officer after the property had been auctioned to the respondent would in law amount to a letting by the respondents the persons who were tenants under the custodian before. 7. On behalf of the respondent it was argued that when the parties went to trial they were both agreed that the property belonged to Government and reference was made in this connection to the averments in the plaint and the written statement set out above. The stand taken in the plaint however does not accord with the grounds of appeal to the District Judge and whatever be the averments of the parties the decision of this Court in Bishan Paul's case (supra) makes it clear that title to the property related back to the date when it was sold in auction to the respondent. 8. So far as Civil Appeal No. 545 of 1966 our attention was drawn to the agreement between the President of India and the respondent dated September 9, 1958 whereby the property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 8,471/- and the respondent covenanted to pay the unpaid amount of Rs. 7,996/62 in seven yearly equal instalments. The agreement recited that the ownership in the property would be transferred only when the value of the property had been realised in full as provided therein. There is nothing on the record to show when the balance of the amount was actually paid but it is to be noted that in the plaint the respondent made an unequivocal statement that the property premises No. III/1367/2851-52 had been transferred to him by the President of India and the appellant was a tenant under him. It must also be noted that the defendant had stated in his written statement that the property had not till the filing of the written statement been transferred by the President and no sale deed had been executed. There is nothing to distinguish the facts of this case from those in the other series already dealt with and our conclusion is that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applied to the premises. 9. In the result of the appeals are allowed and the decrees for eviction set aside. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.