Judgment

P. N. BHAGWATI, J.:- This appeal by certificate raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation and effect of the proviso to Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The dispute in this appeal relates to a shop situate on the ground floor of a building bearing Municipal No. 624-36 (Old) 530-35 (New) situate in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The building was an evacuee property and it was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1954 and formed part of the compensation pool. It was sold by public auction and the appellant being the highest bidder was accepted as the auction purchaser by the managing officer on 5th September, 1955. It does not appear from the record as to when the appellant paid the full purchase price to the managing officer but presumably he did so before 23rd September, 1955 when the sale was confirmed in his favour by the managing officer. The sale certificate was not issued in favour of the appellant for a considerable time and we are told that even until now it has not been issued out possession of the building was handed over to the appellant on 30th August, 1956 and a letter dated 3rd September, 1956 was addressed by the managing officer to the respondent intimating to him that since possession of the building had been handed over to the appellant, the respondent should pay rent to the appellant and otherwise deal directly with him effect from 30th August, 1956. This letter was addressed to the respondent, because at that time the respondent was in possession of one other shop in the same building as a tenant and pursuant to this letter, he attorned tenancy in respect of the shop to the appellant. On 1st September, 1956, the appellant let out the shop in dispute (hereinafter referred to as the premises) to the respondent and the latter continued in possession of the premises as a monthly tenant. However, on 10th August, 1959 the appellant gave a notice to quit terminating the tenancy of the respondent and calling upon him to hand over vacant possession of the premises by the mid-night of 31st August, 1959. The respondent declined to comply with the requisition contained in the notice and hence the appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi on 15th September, 1959 for recovery of possession of the premises from the respondent. There was also a claim made in suit for recovery of arrears of rent but this claim is no longer material and we need not dwell on it. The respondent resisted the claim for eviction inter alia on the ground that the certificate of sale not having been issued in favour of the appellant he was not the owner of the premises and hence he was not legally competent to let out the premises to the respondent nor was he entitled to recover possession of the premises from the respondent. The respondent also disputed the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which had come into force on 9th February 1959 was applicable to the tenancy of the premises and by reason of Section 50 of that Act, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial Court took the view, on a reading of the decision of this Court in M/s. Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L. J. Johnson, AIR 1958 SC 289 that since the certificate of sale was not issued in favour of the appellant, he had not become the owner of the premises and the premises continued to belong to the Government and by reason of Section 3 which provided that "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any premises belonging to the Government", the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was not applicable to the tenancy in respect of the premises and the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial Court also held that since the full purchase price had been paid by the appellant and possession of the premises had been handed over by the managing officer to the a