Permission of the requisite authority necessary.

RAMANUJAM, J. :- These matters, at the first instance, came before the learned Chief Justice and at that stage a decision of Mohan J. in Varadappa Reddiar v. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, (1977) 2 Mad LJ (SN) 17, was relied on by the respondent herein. Since the learned Chief Justice was not inclined to agree with the view of Mohan, J. the matter has been referred to a Division Bench and following is the order of reference : "The Honourable the Chief Justice :-

These revision petitions raise rather an interesting question. The suits for eviction were filed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants of vacant land. The suits were filed on 7-9-1971. In those suits, the trial went on and the defence of the petitioners was that they have prescribed title over the land by adverse possession and set up independent title in themselves over the same. The defence of the petitioners was not conceded to by both the trial court, the appellate court and also this court in second appeal. Decrees for eviction were passed. They have been confirmed by the petitioners taking up the matter further to the stage of the High Court In the meantime, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance)), Act, 1971, Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1971 a declaration was made under S.3 of the said Act, declaring the suit property as a slum area. This is seen from Ex. P.1. The respondent does not dispute that such a notification was made by the authorities under S.3(1) of the Act. The common case is that at no time before 1977 the execution petition was filed. The petitioners took up the position that the decrees are not executable having regard to certain prescriptions in S.29 of the Act which would lay an embargo on normal executability of decrees unless the decree-holder has obtained the permission in writing of the prescribed authority under the Act. The prescribed authority under the Act, means any authority or person authorised by the Government in this regard by a Notification. When the execution petitions were filed in 1977, the petitioner took up objection to the executability of the said decrees on the and that S.29 of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1971, is a bar without there being a previous permission in writing of the prescribed authority being made available to the respondent which permission alone would enable her to proceed with the execution of the decrees. The court below was of the view that there is no bar either expressly or by necessary implication by reason of the provisions of the Act Curiously enough, the court made a reference to S.5 of the said Act, which has no relevance to the subject matter at all. In that view, it did not countenance the objection as to maintainability of the execution petitions without the written permission of the prescribed authority It therefore, dismissed tire application filed by the petitioners, which means, that it a lowed the execution of decrees to go on feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come up in revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to S.29 appearing in Chap. VII dealing with protection of occupants in slum areas from eviction, and in particular referred to fi. 29(1)(b) which reads as follows -

'. . . . . . Proceedings for eviction of occupants not to be taken without permission of the prescribed authority -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 prescribed authority. .... (b) where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceedings instituted before such commencement for the eviction of an occupant from any building or land in such area, execute such decree or order.'

Strong reliance is placed on the language of this Sub-Section of S.29. The contention, therefore, is that unless the previous permission in writing by the prescribed authority is there, no decree of court which would ena