J.M. Tandon, J. - (1.)HOUSE No. 106/B Hussainpura Amritsar was an evacuees property. Amrik Singh predecessor -in -interest of the Petitioners was in occupation of the upper floor of this house. It was auctioned on 24th February, 1960 and the highest bid offered was that of Parbati mother and predecessor -in -interest of Gurbax Singh Respondent. The bid offered by Parbati was approved. The price of the house has since been adjusted from her verified claim. She was declared owner of the house on 13.7 1961 and was issued a sale certificate. The Rehabilitation authorities are stated to have since cancelled the sale certificate in view of the litigation started by Amrik Singh. The claim of Amrik Singh was that in view of the fact that value of the house had been assessed as Rs. 8073/ - he was entitled to its transfer on payment of that price. His claim was negatived by the Rehabilitation authorities. He filed a civil suit for the same relief which was dismissed on 22nd March,, 1974. He filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 14th March, 1977. Regular Second Appeal No. 1291/1977 filed by him in the High Court has also been dismissed Parbati was given possession of the house and its occupants were directed to attorn in her favour. Amrik Singh did not pay the rent to Gurbax Singh successor -in -interest of Parbati. On 1st May, 1974 Gurbax Singh filed an ejectment petition against Amrik Singh on the ground of non -payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per month with effect from 13th October, 1961. Amrik Singh did not pay the arrears of rent and the Rent Controller vide order dated 14th March, 1977 ordered his ejectment Amrik Singh having died, the Petitioner being his legal representatives filed appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate Authority, Amritsar, vide order dated 22nd February, 1979. The Petitioners have assailed the order of the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority in this revision.
(2.)THE only point argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that in view of the fact that no sale certificate has so far been issued by the Rehabilitation authorities in favour of the Respondent, the latter could not seek ejectment of the Petitioners. The contention is without merit. A near similar situation arose in Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram : A.I. R 1965 S.C. 1994, and it was held:
It seems to us that the matter must be considered on general principles. In this case the highest bid was of the Respondent and he paid the full price before the sale in his favour was confirmed. The sale certificate, though issued, later, mentioned the date of the confirmation of the sale in his favour. The tenant was asked to attorn to the purchaser from the date of confirmation of sale and thus possession was also delivered on that day. Title, therefore, is not in abeyance till the certificate was issued but passed on the confirmation of sale. The intention behind the rules appears to be that title shall pass when the full price is realized and this is now clear from the new form of the certificate reproduced in Jatmal's case,, 66 PLR 99 (AIR 1964 P&H 99). No doubt till the price is paid in fall, there is no claim to the property, but it seems somewhat strange that a person who has paid the price in full and in whose favour the tale is also confirmed and who is placed in possession should only acquire title to the property from the date on which a certificate is issued to him. There may be conceivably a great deal of time spent before the certificate is granted. In this case the tenant was told to attorn from 3rd October, 1956 because nothing remained to be done except the ministerial acts of issuing the sale certificate and getting it registered. Therefore, so far at title was concerned, it must be deemed to have passed and the certificate must relate back to the date when the sale became absolute.

The present case is covered by the ratio of the observations made in Bishan Paul's case (supra). The highest bid of Parbatiwas approved. The price of the house has since been recovered from her by adjustment from her wife's claim she has been delivered the possession of the house. The occupants of the house including Amrik Singh were informed to attorn in her favour. Under these circumstances, Gurbax Singh Respondent the successor. in -interest of Parbati shall be taken to be the landlord of the premises in dispute qua Amrik Singh and hit successors -in -interests.

(3.)NO other point has been urged.