The title of an auction-purchaser under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955, commences on the date of confirmation of the sale, not on the date of the sale certificate.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : In this appeal by special leave the appellant is the tenant of the respondent and occupies a shop situated on the Grant Trunk Road, Ludhiana. The High Court of Punjab by the judgment under appeal dated April 10, 1961 dismissed a revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the appellant by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, under S.13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

2. The appellant entered into possession as tenant in 1944 and the monthly rent of the premises was Rs.12. The original landlord became an evacuee and as the property was composite, the District Competent Officer auctioned this property on May 19, 1956 and the highest bid was by the respondent. The bid was approved on October 3, 1956 and the sale certificate was issued to the auction-purchaser on December 4, 1956. On October 3, 1956 the appellant received a letter (Ex. R. 17) from the District Rent and Managing Officer, Ludhiana, informing him that as the sale was confirmed by the Competent Officer on October 3, 1956 he should pay the rent to the respondent from that date. The appellant alleged that he had tendered rent at Rs. 12 per month to the respondent who did not accept it but demanded Rs.20 per month. He further alleged that he had sent a money order for Rs. 12 and another for Rs. 24 which were refused by the respondent. The appellant deposited on July 16, 1958, Rs. 240 and Rs.144 on May 25, 1959 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana (vide Exs. R. 18 and R. 20). In this way the appellant deposited rent for 32 months from October 30, 1956, to June 30, 1959 at Rs. 12 per month. Meanwhile, on May 22, 1959 the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller, Ludhiana under S.13 of the Act for the eviction of the appellant. He stated in that application that the rent of the shop was Rs. 20 per month and it had not been paid from October 3, 1956. He also alleged that the appellant had made material alterations in the shop and put it to use other than that for which it was taken on rent.

3. The Controller by his order, dated April 12, 1960 held that the standard rent was Rs. 12 and not Rs. 20. He held the other grounds not proved but ordered the eviction because the appellant had deposited the second amount three days after the petition of the respondent had been filed for eviction and the total amount deposited was not equal to the full rent, costs and interest as required by the Act. The amount deposited was found to be short by Rs. 1-12-0. The tenant appealed and contended that the tenancy commenced on December 4, 1956 and not on October 3, 1956. He applied for amendment of his pleadings to plead the above fact relying upon a ruling if this Court reported in Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. I. J. Johnson, AIR 1958 SC 289. He contended that if the commencement of the tenancy was taken to be the date on which the certificate was granted to the auction-purchaser the amount of rent deposited by him was in excess of the amount due from him and he had not forfeited the tenancy. The Appellate Authority did not accept the contention. It held that the appellant had paid Rs. 1.19 to the Custodian as rent for the first two days of October and had accepted the respondent as his Landlord from October 3, 1956 and begun to deposit rent from that date. He was held, therefore, to be estopped under S. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the title of the respondent between October 3 and December 4, 1956. The appellant asked for relief against forfeiture but it was rejected in view of the ruling of the Punjab High Court in Debi v. Desa Ramji Lal, 36 Pun LR 284 :

4. The tenant filed a Revision Petition in the High Court. It was dismissed by the order now under appeal. Only one question appears to have been raised in the High Court, namely, when did title pass to the auction-purchaser? The High Court dismissed the revision applic