Bapna, Actg. C.J.—This is a revision in execution proceedings and the facts which have given rise to the petition are as follows:—

Bohra Abdul Hussain, petitioner was a tenant of Pt. Chhaganlal Chaturvedi in respect of a shop situated at Kotah Under sec. 7(2) of the United State of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Contral) Ordinance, 1948, (Ordinance No. XXII of 1948) (hereafter called the Ordinance), the landlord applied to the Controller for eviction of the tenant. The Controllor (the Collector being such officer under the Ordinance) made an order on 8th November, 1950, to the tenant to hand over the building to the landlord. An appeal was filed by the tenant to the Divisional Commissioner and it was heard by the Additional Commissioner. He dismissed the appeal by an order of 30th April, 1951.

2. It may be mentioned that in the interval the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) came into force on 28th November, 1950.

3. After the dismissal of the appeal, the landlord applied to the Court of Munsif, having jurisdiction for execution of the order of eviction. This application was made on 14th August, 1951. Bohra Abdul Hussain had, however, on 2nd July, 1951, preferred a review application. The Additional Commissioner allowed the review on 17th April, 1952 and the appeal was reheard later by the Commissioner. He allowed the appeal by judgment of 29th October, 1952, and remanded the case to the Court of Collector (Controller) to inspect the site and make such enquiries as may be deemed necessary, particularly regarding the shops belonging to the appellants, which were situated close to the shop in dispute, and regarding the chances of his being able to get any of these for his own business, and then to decide the case. While the review was pending, the judgment-debtor brought a stay order in respect of execution proceedings. On behalf of the decree-holder, it was urged that the Additional Commissioner had no power to entertain review and, therefore, the executing court was not bound to comply with the said order. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the Additional Commissioner had no power of review after he had given a judgment in the appeal. He accordingly held the stay order to be nullity and directed execution proceedings to be continued and issued notices to the judgment-debtor why the execution should not be carried out. The judgment-debtos submitted an objection on 5th May, 1952, that the Ordinance having been repealed by Act (No. XVII of 1950) the previous order of the Controller could not be executed by the Munsif. The judgment-debtor also filed an appeal against the order of the Munsif dated 9th April, 1952, by which he held the stay order to be nullity. Before the District Judge, certain other points were also canvassed. The learned District Judge concurred with the Munsif and the appeal was dismissed. The judgment debtor filed a revision which came before a Single Judge of this Court and it was referred to a Division Bench by order of 6th September, 1954.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended:—

That the power to hear an appeal was conferred upon the Commissioner against the order of the Controller directing eviction and the order of the Additional Commissioner disposing of the appeal on 30th April, 1951. was invalid and, therefore, the appeal remained pending till the Commissioner on rehearing the same allowed the appeal on 29th October, 1952. By this order he set aside the order of the Controller and, therefore, there was no valid order existing now which may be put in execution.

5. The next point urged was that the Ordinance (No. XXII of 1949) of the United State of Rajasthan was repealed by the Rajasthan Act (No. XVII of 1950) and sec. 9 of the Ordinance authorising the Munsif to execute the order of the Controller stood repealed and, there was no forum left where the order of the Controller dated 8th November, 1950, could be executed.

6. On behalf o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document