(11) The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 10th May, 1979 held that Sohan Lal was not the tenant of the Custodian when the property was transferred to respondent No. 1. In coming to this conclusion he relied on the attornment letter dated 7th April, 1969, Ex. A. 2. He held that Laxmi Devi was the tenant of respondent No. I and had failed to pay the rent ; that the notice to quit was validly served on her ; and that "even assuming that Sohan Lal was the tenant, although I find otherwise even then I find that a valid notice of termination of tenancy has been served upon the respondents".. However, he held that there was no sub-letting as admittedly Dev Dutt was the son of Laxmi Devi and no rent was being charged by Laxmi Devi from Dev Dutt and Shakuntala Devi. The ground under Section 14(l)(h) of. the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was not pressed. In conclusion the Additional Rent Controller held that respondent No. I was entitled to eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement.
transfer. The main factor being, that persons in occupation should become owners of the evacuee allot table properties, so that there would be the least dislocation of persons in occupation as a result of transfer. See : Smt. Jamna Bai and another v. Union of India and others, . (16) Rule 33 provides that whre any property is transferred to any person under this Chapter, a deed of transfer shall be executed in the form specified in Appendix Xxiv or Xxv as the case may be with necessary modifications.] Appendix Xxiv, which pertains to a deed of conveyance in the case of free-hold properties which are sold otherwise than by public auction, is the relevant form in the present case and contains the following words "this indenture shall be deemed to have come into force ..... ..". (17) Rule 34 provides that where any property is transferred to any person under this Chapter the property shall be deemed to have been transferred toTlim, on the particular dates as indicated in the' said rules. In the present case, as already noticed, the deemed date of transfer is 1st October, i955. (18) In East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, 1952 Appeal Cases
(20) Dealing with a somewhat similar situation under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K.Kapur in Karam Narain v. Narsingh Dass, 1966 Punjab Law Reporter 123 (Delhi), held that the date of transfer for moving an application under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, when the property had been acquired under the D.P.Act and-Rules, would be the deemed-date of transfer. It was held that Rule 34 of the D.P. Rules, by fiction, made the purchasers, trans-' frees of the property, as owners, from a given date ; and when Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act tells of a date of acquisition, it must mean the date when the law deems the owners to have acquired the property.
(22) In the present case it is not disputed that the property was transferred under the D.P. Act and Chapter V of the Rules. The date fixed in conformity with Rule 14 is 1st October, 1955. Thus a fiction has been created, and full and logical effect has to be given to the said fiction. The notional date of transfer, fixed as per the statute and rules, is at a particular point of time, and that has to be taken as the deemed date of transfer. As such, the prior date oF 1st October, 1955, specified in the deed of conveyance dated 17th April, 1968, as the date with effect from which the property was transferred, must be deemed to be the date of transfer. Thus the inevitable corollary must follow. Sohan Lal, who was alive on that date and was the tie-in of the Custodian, would become the tenant of the transferee Gopal Dass by virtue of Section 29 of the Dp Act. Further, on his death on 11th February, 1962 all his legal heirs would inherit the tenancy. Admittedly, his widow Laxmi Devi, Son Dev Dutt and the heirs of his pre-deceased son Khushi