The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government servant notification conferred only a contingent right, liable to be withdrawn, and that subsequent notifications should govern the matter. The judgment also clarified the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court and the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to review petitions.

The revision petitioner is the tenant who was sought to be evicted by the landlord in R.C.P.175/62 filed in November, 1962 in the court of the Rent Controller, Ernakulam. The ground relied on for eviction, was default in payment of rent. The petition was contested by the tenant stating that the landlord had agreed to convey the property to him for Rs.6,000/- and it was in pursuance of that agreement that he did not pay the rent; he has effected various improvements in the building and also in the property and the value of such improvements would exceed the arrears of rent due to the landlord. There was, therefore, no arrears, in fact. He also contended that in case any arrears were found due from him he should be given 6 months' time to discharge it. On 12-8-1963 orders were passed by the Rent Controller for eviction of this petitioner On 6-2-1964 the petitioner filed I.A.406/64 for reviewing the order of eviction on the ground that the petitioner was a government servant and that he was not liable to be evicted as at the time of the passing of the order for eviction the notification declaring government servants not liable to be evicted, was in force. The notification was issued on 16-12-1961 and it was one issued under S.11(ii)(i) of the Rent Control Act. It declared all Central Government and State Government servants as belonging to the essential services and as such entitled to protection against eviction under orders of the Rent Control Courts. The review was allowed by the Rent Control Court. From that order the landlord filed an appeal, R.C.A.31 of 1964 before the appellate authority. While the appeal was pending, the said notification was cancelled by the government by another notification. In the light of the second notification and also in view of the fact that the review itself was time barred, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and restored the order of eviction. From that decision of the appellate authority the tenant filed revision (B.R. C.P.48/66) before the District Judge who having dismissed it, he has Come up in further revision.

2. Before going into the merits of the contentions, it has to be remembered that the revision petitioner-tenant had not taken specific objection to eviction, basing on the Notification which had conferred the right on government servants against being evicted under Rent Control proceedings. Except stating in a loose sense that he is a government servant with a large family to support, no specific plea was raised on the strength of the Notification. In the circumstances there is force in the contention of the respondent that the revision petitioner should be deemed to have tacitly waived his rights under the Notification. The petitioner's answer to this contention is that the Notification having conferred or vested the right in him, it was available to him even without his expressly pleading the right in the petition. I do not think that the Notification has conferred a vested right in him, not capable of being taken away under the cloak of waiver.

"A right is said to be vested when the right to enjoyment present or prospective, has become the property of same particular person or persons as a present interest, independent of a contingency. It is a right which cannot be taken away without the consent of the owner. Vested rights can arise from contracts, from statutes and from operation of law. A person, for example, who enters into a contract with another acquires a vested right in the performance of the contract and is entitled to claim that the contract should be performed in accordance with the terms thereof. Again, a right to compensation for property actually taken for public use and a right or title to property acquired by adverse possession are vested rights which cannot be impaired by sub-sequent legislation unless the statute contains clear words to that effect" (Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes 1970 Edition