ORDER.-The respondent herein obtained a decree dated 12th April, 1973 for eviction of the appellant herein O.S. No.7420 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The decree granted the appellant four months’ time to vacate. On 5th August, 1974 the said decree was put into execution in E.P.No. 622 of 1974. By that time section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildlings (Lease and Rent Control) Act hereinafter referred to as the main Act was amended by Act XXIII of 1973. As a result of the said amendment, the building in respect of which the decree for eviction was obtained by the respondent in the said suit came within the purview of the main Act. Taking advantage of that situation, the appellant contended before the executing Court that the decree for eviction cannot be executed after the coming into force of the Amending Act. This objection was, however, refected by the executing Court, and the execution proceedings were allowed to go on.

2. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court also agreed with the view of the executing Court and held that under the decree for eviction passed earlier to the coming into force of the amending Act, the respondent decree-holder bad acquired a vested right, that such vested rights cannot be taken away except by giving retrospective effect to the amending Act, and that therefore the decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree for eviction notwithstanding the amending Act. The view taken by both the Courts below has been challenged in this appeal by the tenant-appellant.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the Courts below have not properly appreciated the contention put forward by him. He states that it is not his case that the amending Act is retrospective in character so as to unsettle or take away any vested right. His contention before the Courts below was that in view of the amending Act the provisions of the main Act will apply to the building in respect of which the decree for eviction has been obtained by the respendent, and that as such the executing Court cannot execute the decree for eviction in the face of section 10 of the main Act which specifically says that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of the decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the sections 14 to 16 of the Act. According to the learned counsel it is not necessary for him to question the validity of the decree on the ground that the amending Act is retrospective in character, and it is enough for him to show that notwithstanding the validity of the decree it cannot be put into execution in view of section 10 of the principal Act. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on a Bench decision of this Court in Thalai Vadivu Anandar v. Venugopala Chettiar1, in support of his contention that the decree in the is case cannot be executed after the coming into force of the amending Act.

4. A perusal of the judgment of the Court below indicate that they have come on a wrong track as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are not concerned in this case as to whether the amending Act can unsettle on disturbevested rights. The point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that by virtue of section 10 of the Rent Control Act, the executing court cannot evict the tenant in pursuance of the decree obtained by the respondent and that the remedy of the decreeholder is only to proceed to evict the tenant under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. His contention is not that the decree has become a nullity as a result of the retrospective operation of the amending Act. Therefore, the only question that is to be considered in these proceedings is to see whether the executing Court is powerless to execute the decree for eviction in view of section 10 of the Act.

5. It is true, the respordent has obtained a decree for eviction against the appellant in O.S. No. 7420 of 1971, and the four months period given to the appellant to vacate had expired, and as such be is entitled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document