The title in an evacuee property sold at public auction passes to the auction-purchaser on the date of confirmation of sale, and the two years' protection from ejectment under Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act starts from that date.

ORDER OF REFERENCE

D. FALSHAW, C.J. :- The petitioners in this case Jaimal Singh and his son Balwant Singh are tenants against whom an order for ejectment passed by the Rent Controller in favour of the landlord Shrimati Gini Devi was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

2. The premises in suit form part of a house which was evacuee property in which the tenants reside as allottees wider the Custodian. The house was sold by public auction and purchased by Shrimati Gini Devi, the sale in her favour being confirmed on the 23rd of November 1957 and the sale certificate confirming, her ownership as from that date being issued to her on the 10th of May 1961. She instituted proceedings against the present petitioners and other tenants on the ground of personal requirement on the 18th of June 1960.

3. It seems that it was for the first time before the learned Appellate Authority that the tenants sought to raise the defence that the house was evacuee property and that the landlord was not the owner since the sale certificate had not yet been issued to her. As a matter of fact it had not on the date when the appeal was decided, it was also pleaded for the first time that the tenants were protected by Section 29 of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Re-habilitation) Act which prohibits the ejectment of occupants of evacuee property for a period of two years from me date of the transfer. Although wide powers are given to the Appellate Authority by Section 15(3) of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act for holding further enquiry, it necessary, the learned Appellate Authority in this case did not allow these points to be agitated.

4. These matters are of considerable importance as the points arise in a large number of cases between land-lords and tenants. There appears to be some contact between decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court on the question when a landlord who has purchased an-evacuee property can take steps to recover rent from or evict a tenant who was in occupation as an allottee under the Custodian. In Ranjit Singh v. Anup Singh, Civil Revn. S. No. 524 of 1959, D/-3-8-1960 (Punj) D.K. Manajan, J. has held that the title in the property only passes on the issue or the sale certificate and that the two years protection given under Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (compensation and Rehabilitation) Act only starts from that date, but the view has teen expressed in other cases that in an auction sale of evacuee property even, when a sale certificate is issued later it dates back to the date when the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction-purchaser and that an auction-purchaser can sue to eject tenant two years after the date of the confirmation of the sale. One such decision is Mohar Singh v. Mool Chand, 1963-65 Pun LR 253 where I nave taken that view. It is obviously desirable that these points should be settled, by a larger Bench and accordingly order that this case be laid before a Division Bench.

JUDGMENT OF DIVISION BENCH

5. P. C. PANDIT, J. :- This is a tenants petition against the order 01 the Appellate Authority confirming the decision of the Hem Controller ejecting them from the premises in Dispute.

6. Smt. Gini Devi purchased these premises, which formed part of an evacuee house, in which the petitioners resided as allottees under the Custodian. The house was sold by public auction on 26-12-1956. The sale was confirmed on 23-11-1957 and the sale certificate was issued on 30-5-1961. In the meantime, on 18-5-1960 she filed an application for the ejectment of these petitioners under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on the grounds or personal necessity and some other grounds, which were not pressed Before the Appellate Authority.

7. Both the Rent controller and the Appellate Authority have decided the case in her favour.

8. Before the Appellate Authority, the petitioners, for the first time, sought to raise the defence that the house, of which the premises in dispute formed a part, was ev