1957 (10) TMI 39 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Property Transfer; Section 29 Protection Denied

Bombay Salt & Chemical Industries Versus L.J. Johnson

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs as there was no transfer of the property, and the appellants could not claim protections under Section ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of eviction under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons' (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.2. Applicability of Section 29 of the Act regarding the property being of a value lower than Rs. 50,000 and the right to allotment.3. Whether the auction sale amounted to a transfer of property under Section 20 of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of eviction under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons' (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954:The appellants contended that Section 19 of the Act, which allows eviction by force, did not apply to their case, and hence their eviction was illegal. Section 19 provides that the Managing Officer may terminate a lease and eject a person if they fail to surrender possession upon demand, using necessary force. However, the court found that this issue did not arise based on the facts of the case. The appellants had not made a case under Section 19 in their application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, nor were they evicted under this section. At the time of the auction and the application, the lease was still valid, and there was no termination under Section 19. Consequently, this point failed.2. Applicability of Section 29 of the Act regarding the property being of a value lower than Rs. 50,000 and the right to allotment:The appellants initially argued that the property should have been allotted to them as its value was less than Rs. 50,000. However, this point was not pressed in the Supreme Court. The primary contention under Section 29 was that the appellants were entitled to continue in possession as tenants of the auction purchasers (respondents Nos. 4 and 5) and were not liable to be ejected for a period of two years. Section 29 provides that a person in lawful possession of property transferred under the Act shall be deemed a tenant of the transferee and cannot be ejected for up to two years except on specific grounds. The court examined whether there had been a transfer of the property and whether the appellants were in lawful possession.3. Whether the auction sale amounted to a transfer of property under Section 20 of the Act:Section 20 of the Act allows the managing officer to transfer property by sale, including by public auction. The appellants argued that the auction on 31-3-1956 amounted to a transfer to respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The court analyzed the rules and conditions of the auction sale. Rule 90 and the conditions of sale indicated that the highest bid at the auction did not constitute a complete sale or transfer. The bid required approval from the Settlement Commissioner, and the balance of the purchase money had to be paid before a sale certificate could be issued. The court found that no sale certificate had been issued, nor had the balance of the purchase money been paid, meaning no transfer had occurred. Consequently, the appellants could not claim the benefit of Section 29.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, as there was no transfer of the property, and the appellants could not claim the protections under Section 29 of the Act. The court did not find it necessary to decide whether the appellants were in lawful possession in the absence of a transfer.