ORDER :- This is a tenants petition against the order of the Appellate Authority reversing the decision of the Rent Controller and ordering their eviction from the premises in dispute.

2. The property involved in this case is a part of a house which was evacuee property. It was in possession of various occupants, including Harbel Singh, respondent, and the whole of it was later on purchased by him, and the other allottees had been asked to attorn to him. The conveyance deed in his favour was executed on 14-06-1960 and registered on 26-7-1960. It was mentioned in this deed that the said property was being transferred to him with effect from 01-10-1955. On 04-07-1960 he filed an application under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the other occupants, his tenants, on the grounds of (1) the tenants being in arrears regarding payment of rent (2) his personal necessity and (3) the tenants having impaired the value and utility of the leased premises.

3. The tenants denied all the allegations and contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlord was not entitled to apply for their eviction in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The arrears of rent, however, were tendered on the first date of hearing.

4. The Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the tenants were no longer entitled to the protection afforded by Section 29 of the Act, whereunder the ejectment of the tenants is barred for a period of two years. He, however, found that the landlord was not able to establish the grounds of eviction and, consequently, his petition was dismissed.

5. When the matter was taken in appeal by the landlord before the Appellate Authority, it was held that the landlord had been able to establish the ground of personal necessity. As a result, his appeal was accepted, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and the tenants were directed to put the landlord in possession of the premises in dispute within three months from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

6. Against this decision, the tenants filed the present revision. It came up for hearing before Harbans Singh, J. Before the learned Judge it was stated that the question whether two years period under Section 29 of the Act should be taken to start from the date of the sale or the date of the execution of the sale-deed had been referred to a Division Bench in Jaimal Singh v. Smt. Gini Devi, Civil Revn. No. 330 of 1962 : (AIR 1964 Punj 99) and the same question was involved in the present case. On behalf of the landlord, it was argued on the basis of certain authorities of this Court that even if the period of two years was to be counted from the date of the execution of the sale-deed, that period, in fact, expired by the time the Appellate Authority had decided the appeal.

According to the prima facie view of the learned Judge, this Act should not have made any difference, but as the main point involved in the case had already been referred to a Division Bench, the learned Judge held that it would be proper that this allied question as to whether it made any difference if the period of two years from the date of the execution of the sale-deed expired during the pendency of the ejectment application or the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, if the original ejectment was filed before the expiry of such period, should also be referred to a larger Bench. He, consequently, referred this case to a Division Bench and that is how the matter has come before us

7. Admittedly, the property in dispute was transferred to the respondent and not purchased by him in public auction. Before this transfer, he was an allottee of the same along with the petitioners. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 34, appearing in Chapter V, o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document