SUPRME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. BACHAWAT AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Vijendra Nath and others, Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Rai Aggarwal and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. l3l4 of 1966, D/-2- 12-l966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. S .Safeer. Advocate, for Appellants: Mr. 1. M. Lall, Senior Advocate, (Mr .O. P. Varma Advocate with him), for Respondents.
SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956 - SECTION 19 - AMENDMENT ACT, 1964 - SECTION 19 - APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF DECREE FOR EVICTION OF TENANT - PENDING PROCEEDING - WHETHER AFFECTED BY AMENDMENT ACT - RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO LAW IN FORCE AT TIME OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDING.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant in 1960. In 1964, they obtained permission for execution of the decree under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The tenant filed objections to the execution application, which were dismissed. The tenant died during the pendency of the revision petition, and the appellants were brought on the record as his legal representatives.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the new Section 19 inserted by the Amending Act does not affect a pending execution proceeding either expressly or by necessary implication and makes no change in the law applicable to the proceeding. The rights of the parties in the pending application must be decided according to the law as it existed on July 22, 1964, when the application was filed and the execution of the decree commenced.
Issues: Whether the application for execution of the decree for eviction of the tenant, which was filed before the commencement of the Amending Act, is rendered incompetent by the absence of a fresh permission from the competent authority under the newly inserted Section 19.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless the Amending Act affects the pending execution proceeding by express words or by necessary implication, the rights of the parties in the pending proceeding must be decided according to the law in force at the time when the proceeding was commenced and the decree-holder will be entitled to continue the proceeding without obtaining a fresh permission from the competent authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Judgment
BACHAWAT, J. : One S. N. Bhatnagar was the tenant of a building in a. slum area in Delhi under the respondents. On December 5, 1960, the respondents obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant. By this decree, the tenant was allowed time to vacate till March 2, 1963. On June 19, 1964, the respondents obtained the permission for the execution of the decree from the competent authority under S. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (Act No. XCVI of 1956). Section 19 as it stood before December 21, 1964 was in these terms :-
"19. 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person who has obtained any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum area shall be entitled to execute such decree or order except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority.
2. Any person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in sub-section (l) shall make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed.
3. On receipt of such application the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the tenant of being heard and after making such summary inquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall by order in writing either grant such permission or refuse to grant such permission.
4. Where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and furnish copy thereof to the applicant."
2. Before us, learned Counsel on both sides agreed that on or about July 22, 1964, the respondents applied for execution of the decree. The tenant filed objections to the execution application. The objections were dismissed on August 7, 1964. An appeal against this order was dismissed on March l9, 1965, and a revision petition to the High Court was dismissed on March 24, 1965. In the meantime the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964 (Act No. XLIII of 1964) which came into force on December 21, 1964, substituted for Sectiol3 19 of the principal Act the following Section :-
"19. Proceedings for eviction of tenants not to be taken without permission of the competent authority- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority,-
(a) institute, after the commencement of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964, any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area, or
(b) where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of a tenant from any building or 1and in such area, execute such decree or order.
2. Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed.
3.On receipt of such applications, the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary inquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission.
4. In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, namely :-
(a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted;
(b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas;
(c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed.
(5) Where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission, it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant,"
During the pendency of the appeal fro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.