The landlord's acquisition of ownership and the tenant's arrears of rent justified eviction under the Rent Restriction Act.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is landlords petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Act) challenging judgment dated 23.2.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, whereby the view taken by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur in judgment dated 31.8.1982 has been reversed.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of instant petition are that the land- lord-petitioner Raghbir Singh (now represented by his legal representatives) filed Case No. 130 of 1980 claiming that he has been owner of the demised shops which had vested in the Central Government being evacuee property. It was publicly sold on 4.7.1969 for a sum of Rs.l 1,500/- and he was declared the highest bidder. The sale was confirmed on 10.9.1969 in his favour and he paid the entire sale consideration on 29.9.1969. It was further asserted that a sale certificate was issued in his favour on 7.2.1975. It is claimed that at the time of sale of the demised shops, tenant-respondent Sansar Chand (now represented by his legal representatives) was the tenant under the Central Government at the rate of Rs. 24/- p.m. He claimed, that by operation of law, the landlord-petitioner became the new landlord in place of the Central Government and the tenant-respondent became his tenant on the same terms. It has been alleged that the tenant-respondent in league with the officials of the Punjab Wakf Board (for brevity, the Wakf Board) got a collusive suit instituted against himself by getting Union of India and State of Punjab impleaded as party defendant without impleading him as a party despite the fact that he was fully aware that the demised shop was already sold by the Central Government and purchased by the landlord-petitioner. It is claimed that the Punjab Wakf Board or the State of Punjab has got nothing to do with the demised shop. The aforementioned suit was decreed in favour of the Wakf Board and against the Union of India/Punjab State on 11.9.1975 and the appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 18.4.1979. When the landlord-petitioner filed an application during the pendency of the appeal for being impleaded as party, the same was re jected. The landlord-petitioner sought eviction of the tenant-respondent on the principal ground of non payment of rent since 4.7.1969.

3. The tenant-respondent took the stand that he was in possession of only one shop adjoining the shop of Shri Faqir Chand. He claimed that his possession is under the Wakf Board who is a necessary party. He further asserted that the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1975 would operate as res judicata against the landlord-petitioner.

4. The Rent Controller found that the Wakf Board was not a necessary party as the demised shop could not be recorded as a Wakf property. After referring to the statements of various witnesses, the Rent Controller found that once the Wakf Board is not recorded as owner of the demised shops in the record of rights, nor the nature of the demised shops has been recorded as a Wakf property, then the Wakf Board was not a necessary proper party. After referring to Section 3(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (for brevity, the Wakf Act) and placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Panchayat Den v. Punjab Wakf Board Ambala and Anr., (1969)71 P.L.R. 1081, the Rent Controller observed as under:-

" As already indicated above, it has not been proved in this case that the dedication has been made by a person professing Islam. Thus, the demised premises rightly vested in the Central Govt. Since these shops had been auctioned in favour of the applicant and the sale certificate has been issued in his favour, therefore, it cannot be said that the demised premises is Wakf property..."

5. The Rent Controller further held that judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court dated 11.9,1975 and upheld in appeal on 18.4.1979 would not operate as res judicata with regard to the claim made by the landl