Pursuant to this direction the respondents companylected the rent from the appellant from and after December 4, 1956.
546 of 1966 and 331 to 334 of 1967, Shiv Nath v. Shri Mela Ram D 25 4 1969 SC .
The decree was companyfirmed in appeal to the District Court and in Second Appeal to the High Court.
The Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 was brought into force with effect from some time in the year 1958.
He thereafter instituted on August 7, 1964 a suit in the Civil Court at Delhi for an order in ejectment.
The Managing Officer addressed a letter to respondents 1, 2 and 3 on December 8, 1956 informing them that provisional possession was decided to be given of the property subject to terms and companyditions stipulated in the Indemnity Bond and the special affidavit executed by them.
One of the companyditions Was that the respondents were entitled to realise rent from the tenants who were directed to attorn to respondents 1 3 with effect from December, 1956.
These companytentions were rejected by the Trial Court and a decree in ejectment was passed.
By special leave the appellant has appealed to this Court.
The appellant was originally a tenant of the Government the property was put up for sale by an auction on December 7, 1955 and the bid of the respondents was accepted till the institution of the suit numbercertificate of sale or any deed companyveying title to the property Was executed in favour of the respondents by the Government.
The suit was resisted by the appellant companytending inter alia that under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the suit was number maintainable in the Civil Court and that in any event the numberice served upon the appellant did number operate to terminate the tenancy.
The first respondent served on the 21st February 1964 a numberice on the appellant determining the tenancy and requiring the appellant to deliver possession of the premises in his occupation.
See the judgment of this Court in Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram and Civil Appeals Nos.
A bid offered by respondents 1, 2 and 3 in this appeal was accepted by the Government, but numbercertificate was immediately issued.
C. Shah, J. For many years before 1955 the appellant was a tenant of the Government in respect of a part of a building which was originally evacuee property.
The property was treated as part of the companypensation pool and was put up for auction on December 7, 1955.
