Title passes on confirmation of evacuee property sale, while statutory rent default can mandate eviction.

Under the evacuee property sale rules, title was treated as passing on confirmation of the highest bid once the full purchase price had been paid; the later issue of the sale certificate was only a ministerial step, so the landlord could claim rent and pursue ejectment from confirmation. On rent default, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act made eviction mandatory where arrears were not paid or tendered within the statutory period, and the tenant had no independent equitable relief against forfeiture. The tenant's challenge therefore failed on both title and statutory protection against eviction, and eviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether title to evacuee property sold in public auction passed on confirmation of the highest bid or only on issue of the sale certificate; (ii) whether the tenant was entitled to relief against eviction for alleged short deposit of rent.

Issue (i): Whether title to evacuee property sold in public auction passed on confirmation of the highest bid or only on issue of the sale certificate.

Analysis: The sale scheme under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules, 1955 contemplated several stages, including auction, approval of the bid, payment of the full purchase price, and issue of a certificate. The decisive factor was payment of the full price and approval of the bid, after which only ministerial steps such as issue and registration of the certificate remained. The Court held that the earlier precedent did not decide the precise point in issue and that, on the facts, the purchaser had paid the full price before confirmation and had been treated by the tenant as landlord from the date of confirmation. In such a situation, title could not be treated as remaining in abeyance until issue of the certificate.

Conclusion: Title passed on confirmation of the sale, and the landlord was entitled to claim rent and maintain proceedings for ejectment from that date.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant was entitled to relief against eviction for alleged short deposit of rent.

Analysis: Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 required payment or tender of arrears within the statutory period and, under the proviso, payment at the first hearing with interest and costs. The Court had earlier construed the provision as mandatory, leaving no discretion to refuse eviction once the statutory default was established. Since the tenant had not complied with the statutory requirement and no independent relief from forfeiture was available, the tenancy could not be protected against eviction.

Conclusion: No relief against forfeiture was available, and the order of eviction stood justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the question of title and the question of statutory protection against eviction, and the tenant remained liable to be evicted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the full purchase price has been paid and the sale is confirmed under the applicable evacuee property sale rules, title passes on confirmation and not upon the later ministerial issue of the sale certificate; a tenant cannot resist eviction by disputing that title or by seeking equitable relief where the rent-control statute makes eviction mandatory on proven default.

---