Retrospective effect of proceedings during pendency before Courts.

This Civil Revisilon Petition is against the order of the learned City Civil Judge passed in E.A. No. 1772 of 1951 in E.P. No. 862 of 1951 in L. Dis. No. 4315 H.R.C. 1950. The petitioner is the tenant against whom an order for eviction was passed by the Rent Controller on the 7th September, 1950. The order is in the following terms:

“Petitioner by advocate. Respondent in person. By consent respondent is given time for vacating till the 7th March, 1951. Eviction is ordered.”

It transpires a further extension of time for vacating and delivery of possession was given till the 26th May 1951. This extension of time was given on 12th April 1951 by the City Civil Court. It was obviously given when the landlady filed an execution application on the 21st March, 1951. In between the filing of the execution application and the expiry of the extended time for delivery of possession a new legislation viz., Act VIII of 1951 came into force on the 1st May, 1951. That Act amended the original Act XV of 1946 as amended by further Acts. By the amendment of 1951 several new provisions were added to the existing Act. The relevant provisions which are material to this petition are those relating to section 7(3-A), section 12-B, section 18 and section 20. Under section 7(3-A) it was provided that no order for eviction shall be passed under sub-section (3)(1) against any tenant who is engaged in any employment or class of employment notified by the State Government as an essential service for the purpose of this sub-section unless the landlord is himself engaged in any employment or class of employment which has been so notified. In this case it is common ground that the petitioner is engaged in an employment notified by the State Government as an essential service, he being employed in the High Court as a sergeant of the High Court. The next section that is relevant is the one contained in section 12-B which gives the High Court and the District Court power to revise, on the application of any aggrieved party, any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act by the authority, either the Rent Controller or the executing authority. There is an Explanation to this section which is also very relevant for the purpose of this petition and that Explanation reads:

“The jurisdiction of the High Court or District Court under this section shall extend also to orders passed on proceedings taken at any time within six months before the commencement of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amending Act, 1951.”

The next section which is relevant is section 18 but I do not think I need extract it here; but the more important section that is very material is the one enacted as section 20 which is to the following effect:

“Any rule or order made or deemed or purporting to have been made, any decision or direction given or deemed or purporting to have been given, any noticfication issued or deemed or purporting to have been issued, any action or proceeding taken or deemed or purporting to have been taken or anything done or deemed or purporting to have been done,.....shall be deemed to be a rule or order made, decision or direction given, notification issued, action or proceeding taken, or thing done, under the corresponding provisions of this Act.”

When E.P. No. 862 of 1951 was pending before the executing Court the tenant put in a petition E.A. No. 1772 of 1951 on the 16th May, 1951 praying that the Court may be pleased to cancel the warrant issued in E.A. No. 862 of 1951 on the ground that no order of eviction should be passed against him by virtue of the new provision under section 7 (3-A). His contention was that on a proper interpretation of section 7(1) wherein it was stated that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisons this section and while section 7(3-A) stated that no order for eviction shall be passed under sub-section (3) against any tenant who has been notified by