Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1957 (10) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondent No. 3 in this appeal, advertised that the salt pans should be sold by public auction on 6-1-1956. The appellants moved the High Court at Bombay under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the proposed sale on the ground that the value of the property did not exceed. ₹ 50, 000 and consequently it could not, under the provisions of the Act, be sold without first offering it to the appellants in lieu of compensation payable to them under the Act. The High Court stayed the sale pending the hearing of the application. On 2-2-1956, the lease to the appellants was renewed for the last time for a further period ending on 15-4-1956. Thereafter, the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution came up for hearing and was dismissed. The appellants filed an appeal in the same Court from the order of dismissal and again applied for a stay of the sale. The Court however, refused to stay the sale further and only ordered that the sale was not to be confirmed for a week and expedited the hearing of the appeal. On 31-3-1956, the property was put up to auction and Parvatibai Wadhumal and Kakanbai Tulsimal, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 who offered a bid of ₹ 4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order of the Chief-Settlement Commissioner, dated 20-4-1956, and such leave was granted on 28-5-1956. 4. Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas appearing in support of the appeal contended that it was S. 19 of the Act alone which gave a power to evict by force, but that section had no. application in the present case and therefore, the eviction of the appellants was illegal and should be set aside. That section provides that subject to the rules made under the Act the Managing Officer may terminate a lease under which any evacuee property is held and where by reason of such termination any person has ceased to be entitled to possession of any evacuee property, he shall on demand surrender possession thereof and that if he fails so to surrender possession, the Managing Officer may eject such person and take possession and may for such purpose use such force as may be necessary. The section as summarised above is as it stood prior to its amendment by Act LXXXVI of 1956. We are not concerned with the amendment because it came into force long after the appellants had been evicted. Mr. Pursushottam Trikamdas pointed out that there had been no. cancellation of the appellants' lease in this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held the property immediately before the transfer : Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any such terms and conditions, no. such person shall be liable to be ejected from the property during such period not exceeding two years as may be prescribed in respect of that class of property, except on any of the following grounds, namely : Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas and that under this section the appellants were entitled to continue in possession of the property as tenants of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and were not liable to be ejected for a period of 2 years, that being the period prescribed by R. 121 of the Rules made under the Act. It was not disputed that the appellants were persons to whom the provisions of the section applied, nor that the property was of the class notified under sub-sec. (2) S. 29, nor further that none of the grounds on which an ejectment was permitted by the section existed. Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas had, however, to show that there was a transfer of the salt pans and that his clients were in lawful possession of them. The learned Solicitor- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted shall be subject to the approval of the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose - provided that no. bid shall be approved until after the expiry of 7 days from the date of the auction. Sub-rule (11) provides that the intimation of the approval of a bid or its rejection shall be given to the highest bidder, thereafter referred to in the Rules as the auction purchaser, and the auction purchaser shall when the bid has been accepted, be required within 15 days of the issue of such intimation to send or produce a Treasury challan in respect of the deposit of the balance of the purchase money. Sub-rule (15) provides that when the purchase price has been realised in full from the auction purchaser, the Managing Officer shall issue to him a sale certificate in the form specified in appendix 22 or 23 as the case may be. Form 23 relates to a sale of lease-hold property and with this we are not concerned. Form 22 is in respect of freehold properties and is in these terms : This is to certify that has been declared the purchaser at a sale by public auction held in pursuance of the powers conferred upo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rty to the auction-purchaser comes into existence. Then the provision as to the sale certificate would indicate that only upon the issue of it a transfer of the property takes place. Condition of sale No. 7 in this case, furthermore, expressly stipulated that upon the payment of the purchase price in full the ownership would be transferred and a sale certificate issued. It is for the appellants to show that the property had been transferred. They have not stated that the sale certificate was issued, nor that the balance of the purchase money had been paid. In those circumstances, it must be held that there has as yet been no. transfer of the salt pans to respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The appellants cannot therefore claim the benefit of S. 29 and ask that they should not be evicted. Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas contended that the sale certificate will in any event be granted and that once it is granted, as the form of this certificate shows, the transfer will relate back to the date of the auction. It is enough to say in answer to this contention that assuming it to be right, a point which is by no. means obvious and which we do not decide, till it is granted no. transfer with effect from a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates