LexB. V. PATANKAR AND OTHERS versus C. G. SASTRY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 591 '. territory of India from at least August 15, 1947, till.the 26th November, 1949. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the High Court was right in sustaining Man gal Sain 's . claim to be deemed a citizen of India under Art. 6 of the Constitution and, in that view was also right in allowing his appeal and ordering the dismissal of the Election Petition. In the view we have taken as regards Mangal Sain's claim to citizenship under Art. 6 of the Constitution it is not necessary to consider whether his claim to citizenship under Art. 5 of the Constitution was also good. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed. B. V. PATANKAR AND OTHERS v. C. G. SASTRY (B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRA· GADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Rent Control-Restrictions agaiiist eviction of tenants-Decree for possession of house-Delivery given in the absence of tenant- Executing Court ignoring restrictions-Legality-Repugnance- Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, z948, ss. 9 and z6 and Transfer of Property Act, z882 (Act IV of z882),- Code of Civil Proce~ure (Act V of z908) ss. 47, z5z. The appellants in execution of a decree passed in their favour for possession over a house obtained possession thereof on July 22, r95r. The order for delivery of possession was made without notice to and in the absence of the respondent. The respondent made an application in the Executing Court under ss. 47, 144 and r5r, Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte or.}er of delivery and for redelivery of possession of the house to him or in the alternative, for an order to the appellants for giving facilities for removing the moveables from the house. The Executing Court upheld the contention of the appellant that 76 Ig6o Shanno Devi v. Mangal Sain Das Gupta ]. 1960 Septetnber _8. R. JI. Palankar 6- Otht1s v. C. G .. '·iastry 5!l2 SUPRE)IE COURT REPORTS [1961 J the respondent's application was not maintainable. On appeal by the respondent the High Court held that the Executing Court had no jnrisdic!ton to order the eviction of the respondent because of the provisions of the Mysore !louse J<ent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, which was in operation on the date of eviction and under ss. 9 and 16 of which certain restrictions were placed on the eviction of tenants. On appeal to tlus Court by special leave, the appellants coutended, inter alia; as they did in the High Court also, that the Mysore House Henl Control Order of 1948 was repugnant to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), which became applicable in the State of )fysore by Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (Act III of 1951), which came into force on April l, 1951; and therefore the House Control Order could not operate on the rights of the parties on the day when the Executing Court made the order for delivery of possession to the appellants, i.e., July 9, 1951, or when delivery was actually given i.e., on July 22, 1951. Held, that the Transfer o! Property Act came into force only when it was extended by notification dated September 12, 1951, under s. 3 of that Act, i.e., from O<:tober 1, 1951, and therefore the ~lysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, was not repealed as from April l, 1951, when the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, came into force and was in force when the possession was delivered. It was then an existing law which was saved by Art. 372 of the Constitution and remained unaffected by Art. 254, and the question of repugnancy to the Transfer of Property Act (Act l V of 1882) did not arise in this case. Mjs. Tilakram Rambaksh v. Hcm/1 of Patiala, A.LR. 1959 Punj. 440, considered. Section 47 of the Code.of Civil Procedure was applicable to the proceeding out of which this appeal has arisen because the question whether the decree was completely satisfi<'d and there- fore the court becaruc functus officio was a n1att~r relating to execution, satisfaction and discharge of the decr'ee. Ramanna v. Nallaparaju, A. I. R 1<156 S. C. 87 an<l ]. Marrct v. Mohammad Sl11rozi and Sons, A.I.I<. 1930 P. C. 86, considered. \Vherc the court was not aware of the st:ttutory. restriction by which the execution of a decree v..·as prohibited and passed an ejectment decree against a tenant the r~xecuting Court could not execute the decree and any possession g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.