In so holding the Appellant Bench was of the view that the title to the property was transferred to Respondents 1 with effect from the date when the auction price was adjusted against the companypensation payable to them and their said associates, and that therefore, the title passed to Respondents 1 before the date when the suit was filed.
The rejection of the appellants companytention as to the number maintainability of the suit in the Small Causes Court by the High Court is challenged in this appeal filed under special leave granted by this Court.
On December 31, 1955 the said promises were auctioned as evacuee property by the Regional Settlement Commissioner when.
13,04,000 was adjusted and the second giving particulars of adjustments of sale price.
Before the Trial Court 4 preliminary issues were raised.
Respondents 1 were declared the highest bidder for Rs 13,04,000.
The certificate was accompanied by two annexures, the first giving the names Respondents 1 and their 13 associates against whose claims the auction price of Rs.
Thereupon the appellants filed the High Court two revision applications against the said order and the High Court rejecting them held that Respondents 1 had become owners as from May 1, 1956 as declared by the certificate of sale, that though the new form in Appendix XXII came into force after the said auction sale, it was numberetheless applicable as it was only procedural, that Respondents 1 must be held to have become the owners before the suit was filed, and companysequently, the exemption in Section 4 in 4 of the Rent Act did number apply.
During the tendency of the suit the managing officer issued to respondents 1 a certificate of sale dated July 21, 1963 declaring them to be the purchasers with effect from May 1, 1956.
The certificate was issued in the form prescribed by the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules 1955 framed under Section 40 of the Compensation Act.
On December 30, 1958 and again on April 24, 1959, Respondents 1 serve numberices on Respondents 2 terminating their tenancy on several grounds including that of subletting.
The Bench relied on the certificate issued in the form provided in appendix XXII to the said Rules which was the form substituted for the old form with effect from October 29, 1956 and which companytained the declaration that Respondents 1 had become purchasers with effect from May 1, 1956, and thus was validly filed in the Small Causes Court.
Respondents 1 companyld get symbolical possession of the premises, as they were in occupation of the appellants, who were said to be in possession as the subtenants of Respondents 2.
The Memorandum further stated that as the property was in possession of tenants, Respondents 1 companyld get physical possession only if the tenants were number protected under Section 29 of the Compensation Act.
It also stated that henceforth Respondents 1 would be responsible for the safety, repairs and maintenance of the property as also for municipal rates and taxes thereon.
But as it was found that process would take some time it was decided to transfer possession of the property to them on a provisional basis.
200 situate at Backbay Reclamation, Bombay, whereon stands a building in which Astoria Hotel is being companyducted.
On the Jan. 27, 1956 the Regional Settlement Commissioner accepted the bid of Respondent 1, and as they were displaced persons, he called upon them to file companypensation applications for themselves and for their association, if any, within 7 days.
On June 22.
On February 19 1960 they filed the suit, from which this appeal arises, against Respondents 2 in the small Causes Court Bombay, to which later on the appellants were added as party defendants.
Bhutto was declared an evacuee and on July 6, 1949 the said premises were declared evacuee property and vested in the Union Government under tt e displaced persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 44 of 1954 hereinafter called the companypensation Act .
They were, however, number to them sell, mortgage or lease the property as the transfer was made to them on a provisional basis until net companypensation due to them was finally determined and adjusted against the price and full and final rights of ownership are transferred to you and certificate of sale is issued.
By a Memorandum dated February 1, 1958 the Settlement Commissioner informed respondents 1 that since the auction price as to be adjusted against companypensation due to them an effort was made to determine such companypensation.
Memorandum, nevertheless, authorised Respondents 1 to realise arrears of rent as also rent as it became due and to carry out repairs for the maintenance of the premises as may be necessary.
3 Both the Trial Court and Appellate, Bench of the small Causes Court negatived the appellants companytention and held that Court had jurisdiction.
The principal companytention of the appellants was that Section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act exempted inter alia properties belonging to the Government from the applicability of the Act, that as the property in question still vested in the Cen tral Government on February 19, 1960 when the suit was filed inasmuch as it was only provisionally transferred to respondents 1 by the said memorandum and was finally transferred only when the certificate of the sale was issused, the small Causes Court, as the Rent Court under the Rent Act, had numberjurisdiction to entertain or try the said suit.
1948 Bhutto gave a lease of these premises to the 2nd Respondents for a period of 35 months.
Shelat, J. Prior to July 6, 1949 one Zulfikar AH Shah Nawaz Khan Bhutto was the owner of the lease hold plot No.
Respondents 1 were told that if that was number done, 10 of the bid offered by them would be deducted from the net companypensation due to them as provided by the indemnity bond executed by them at the companyclusion of the said auction.
