*Sangat Singh v. Chaudhary P.N. Behl, AIR 1970 SC 812
casemine.com link
legitquest.com link
*Not Printed
Civil Appeal No. 1950 of 1966 decided on 26/11/1969
Headnote
Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) , S.3(a), S.3 Proviso— Houses and Rents – Auction of evacuee property – Acceptance of bid – Attornment by tenant to purchaser – Suit for ejectment of tenant – No evidence led to indicate that title did not pass to purchaser – Proviso to Section 3 and not Section 3 (a) is attracted – Civil Court is barred from entertaining suit. Decision of Delhi High Court Reversed. Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.9—
Certain building which was originally evacuee property was put to auction. Bid of an auction purchaser was accepted but no certificate was immediately issued. The Managing Officer gave provisional possession to the purchaser with direction to the tenant occupying the building to attorn to him. Purchaser realised the rent accordingly. He filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant in Civil Court. He did not discharge the burden which lay upon him to prove that he had not paid considerationtill filing of the suit and that title was not conveyed to him by the Government. Held, the Civil Court was barred from entertaining the suit. In absence of proof that the property did belong to Government at the time of filing the suit, the case did not fall under Section 3 (a). Proviso to Section 3 was attracted as the direction by the Managing Officer to the tenant to attorn to the purchaser and actual realisation of rent by him constituted letting within meaning of the Proviso. “Letting” within meaning of the Proviso is not restricted only to the voluntary act on the part of the landlord allowing the former tenant to continue in possession. AIR 1965 SC 1994 and 1969 Ren CR 494, Foll.(Para 4 5)
One Stop destination for DU LLB students 