LexDULAREY LODH versus THE IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KANPUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
'
74~
DULAREY LODH
v.
THE. IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KANPUR & ORS.
May 3, 1984
[S. MURTAZA fAZAL,ALI AND A VARADARAJAN, JJ,]
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting1 Rent a1.d ·Eviction\ Act
1972, Section 9 & U.P. Urban Build:ngs (Regulation of Letting. Rent and
Evict.ion) (Amendinent) Act )9'76- Decree of ev;.: ti on passed' again!d tenant under
1972 Act-Executing court holding decree fne-xecutable-'1976 Amendn1ent Act
making ;ection 9· of 19]2 Act applici!blie with retrospective ef!ett--Decree of
.. eviction whethef :revived and becorning operative and executable-Doctrine of·
eclipse-Appllcability ·of:
A
B
c
Interpretation of Statutes-Doctrine, of e'cliPse-Appllcability. of-When
D
arises .
•
The respondent 1and1ord filed a suit for ejectment in the year 1971
and obtained a decree for ejectment agatnst the appellant-tenant. By virtue
of the provisions Qf the U.P. Urban Buiidings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction} Act, 1972; the cuse waS transferred to the court of -the Judge,
Small Causes, who tried the case and passed a decree in ·ravour of the
respondent. No appeal or revision was fil_cd· agaii1st tbe said- judgment.
Thereafter, the.decree-holders filed an execiition petition. The apPeJJant,
raised a jurisdictional objection, on the basis of tlie judgmeDt of th"e AJJaha~
bad High Court,.(K.K. Saksena v. S.N. Misra 1975·ALR 360) to the effect
that the_ transfer of :the suit. before conferment Of the jurisdiction to the
Judge, Small Causes Co~rt was.not ·coinpeteat and therefore, the decree \vas
not exe·cutable. The respondent's counsel contended that the suit would have
to be tried all over ag<i.in and the Court held that t-he decree was without
jurisdiction. The decree remained inexecutable, but bY vjrtue of the U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) ·
Act, 1976 _s. 9 of the 1.972 Act was made applicable with reirosp~ctive
effect to remove 'he.injustice and remedy the mischief which had been
caused to the decree-holders. As a re~u't -of the amendment, the aforfsaid
judgment of the Allahabad High Court stood .over ruled and effaced .
.Jn view of the aforesaid ·amendment, the respondents filed an applica-
tion before the EXecuting Court for revival of the suit· and the decree, which
was ·accept~d bYihe Court, and a Civil Revision ij.Jed against t_be siiid Order
was dismissed by the Hish Court,
·
,
E
F
G
H
,744
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS
[1984] 3 s.c.R.
A
Jn the appcii.l lo this Coi.irt, it was contended on behalf of the
B
appellant, that in ~icw of the Al!ahabad High Court decision and the r97 2
Act, the decree st9od set aside and could not be revived or made executable
.even by the 1976 A~endment Act. ·
·
I
Dismissing the appeal,
i
'
HELD : I. iThe courts below Juve rightly decided that after the 1976
Amen.drnetit Act tfe decree became legally executable. [747A]
2. By
virh·~ of the l 97 2 Act the decree could not have been set
aside or invaHdafed and the only con~equcnce wh.ich would ensue is that
the decree wo'11d Pe lying dormant and could not be ext!:ut~d. OnCe the bar
C placed by the 19V Aet is removed, by virtue of the doctrine of eclipse th<>
decree will revive. and become at once operative and executable,
1
[7SOH; 75 IA]
I
3. 'Even i1 the 1972 Act were to apply, the utmost" consequence
would be that th~ decree would remain inexecutable but could not bo struck
off from the reco.Tds of the case. This is a clear case Where the doctrine of
eclipse would ap1)ly, and {n view of the 1976 Amendment Act, the decree
D will revive a·nd ~ecome ·-executable. This principl~ has been applied by this
Court. in severaf cases and ·11.ows from the well-known doctrine of eclipse·.
which bas been rnunciated not only ip. India but in other countries also.
.
·
·
.
(7470-H)
I
. Bhikajl t\{arain Dhakrai· & Ors. v. Stats of Madhya Pradesh & Anr;
[1955] 2 SCR S89, Deep Chandv' SrQte ofU.P. &Ors; (1959] 2 Supp. SCR
E ·s, Mahendra Lal.laini v. The State of Urtar Pradesh & Ors; [1963] I Supp.
SCR 912, S .A.balag;P v.·n. Dcvarajan; [198"4] 2 SCC 91, Kai/ash Sankar v.
Smt. Maya Dev(; (1984] 2 SCC 91,
referred to ..
C1v1L ~~PELLATE Ju1so1cnoN : CiviJ Appeal No. 1574 of'l980.
Appeal lby Special leave from the, Judgment and Orcler dated'
F tlie27.719791ofthe Allahabad High Conrt i.n C.M.W .. No. Nil of
19.79.
Anil DJv Singh, S.L. Aneja and KL. Taneja for the Appellant.
M.C. 'ftanchanda, Mrs. S,hoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.