1. Though the point raised in this Revision Petition lies within a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out a few facts leading thereto. One Gaffoor Saheb became entitled to the property comprising of a cinema theatre and land appurtenant thereto. It had originally belonged to his deceased wife. On her death, Gaffoor Sahib became entitled to a fourth share and their son to three-fourths share. The son also having died, Gaffoor claims to have become the sole owner of the property. This property had been leased out by the original owner to three person including Gaffoor himself. Of the two other joint lessees, one died and under the circumstances stated, the surviving lessee became the sole successor-in-interest of the lease. It may be mentioned that the lease was for the period 1936 to 1946 and apparently the lessee is holding over.
2. Gaffoor Sahib filed a petition for the eviction of the lessee. This was O.P. No. 37 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupathur. During the pendency of this proceeding, the surviving lessee was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Assignee, was brought on record. After hearing, an order of eviction was made. This order was passed on 5th November, 1959.
3. The Official Assignee purported to bring to sale the right, title and interest of the insolvent in the property in question. The sale was conducted on the 14th October, 1959, and the sale notification specifically mentioned that the purchaser at the auction will be fixed with notice of the eviction proceedings and the sale will be subject to the same. One Mohamed Shamveel, the present petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, appears to have purchased the property and the sale was confirmed on 9th November, 1959. It will be noticed that by the date this Shamveel obtained any right in the property, the order for eviction of his predecessor-in-interest had already been made. Under these circumstances, this Shamveel, claiming to be a person aggrieved, filed an appeal against the order of eviction. The learned Subordinate Judge at Vellore held that Shamveel was not a person aggrieved within the meaning of the section and dismissed his petition. A Revision Petition against this order was carried to the District Judge of North Arcot, who concurred in the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed it. It is against that order that the present Revision Petition has been filed.
4. It seems to me that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the conclusion reached by the Courts below must be accepted as correct. It is undeniable that any right which the petitioner acquired in the property in question must date from the date of the sale deed executed in his favour by the Official Assignee. The fact that an auction had been held on the 14th October, 1959, or that the petitioner was the successful bidder at that auction cannot straightaway operate to pass title to the property in favour of the auction purchaser. His rights must accordingly be deemed to have come into existence only on 9th November, 1959. It is further clear that the proclamation of sale specifically drew the attention of the intending bidders to the pendency of the House Rent Control Petition and the proceedings for eviction against the insolvent. They were also made aware of the fact that the sale was subject to any decision rendered in those proceedings. It is obvious then that the present petitioner was not a party and could not have been a party to the House Rent Control proceedings, and the order for eviction that was passed against the insolvent represented by the Official Assignee, in these proceedings had become final.
5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order of eviction operates to the detriment of the petitioner and if he, who was not a party to those proceedings, is to be affected adversely by that order, it is only reasonable that he should be regarded as a person aggrieved thereby. This argument may no doubt be ethically sound, but I cannot see how under the law the petitioner can claim that he was aggrieved by an order which on the date of its-passing could give rise to no grievance to the petitioner for the simple reason that on that date he had no interest in the subject-matter of that proceeding. The petitioner was fully aware that eviction proceedings were pending against the person whose interests he was seeking to acquire and by terms of the proclamation he was affected not only with notice of that proceeding but was bound by the results of that proceeding. The acquisition of any right which the insolvent possessed in the property by means of the auction sale cannot under the circumstances, include the right to continue in possession of the property. Whatever rights other than the right of occupation of the premises the insolvent may have had, can alone pass to the purchaser.
6. For these reasons I am satisfied that the Courts below were correct in holding against the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.