LexJAI SINGH JAIRAM TYAGI ETC. versus MAMANCHAND RATILAL AGARWAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 ·c D E .F H 224 JAI SINGH JAIRAM TY AGI ETC. v. MAMANCHAND RATILAL AGARWAL AND ORS. • March 28, 1980 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] The Canton111ents (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 as amended retrospectively by An1ending Act 22 of 1972-Efject of the provi.sions of the Amending ACt-Whether a compromise decree passed in 1967 before the amend- ment is saved by tlze Amending Act. Doctrine of Re.s judicata-C'o1npro111ise decree declared nullity by the Exc~ut ing Court as the Bornbay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rate~ Control Act, 1947 had no application to buildings in Cantonment area-All decrees validated by Amtnding Act 22 df 1967-fVhether earlier decision of the Ex,ecutive Court bars- further execution s~tit on the ground of res ;udicata. The respondents in Civil Appeal , No. 708 /78 Mamanchand Ratilal Agarwal and others, who are the landlords of premises b.earing door No. 16 in Nawa Bazar Area Kirkee Cantonment, filed a civil suit No. 1730 of 1964 against the Appellant-tenant for recovery of possession and arrears of rent under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rt:ttcs Control Act, 1947. The suit was decreed. There was an appeal by the tenant. It resulted in a com- promise decree dated.July 12, 1967 by \Vhich some time was given to th~ tenant to vacate the premises. On April 29, 1969, in the case of In.du Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi and Anr. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 443, this Court held that Parliament alone had and the State Legislature did not have the necessary competence to make a law in regard to the "regulation of house accommodation in Cantonment Areas." The expression "regulation of house accommodation" was interpreted as not to be confined to allotment only but as extending to other inci~ents, such as termina- tion of existing tenancies and eviction of persons in possession of house accom- n1odation etc. To get over the situation created by the said decision, on Decein- ber 29, 1969, the Central Government issued a notification under section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 extending the pro- visions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to the Kirkee and other cantonment areat:;. On June 2, 1972, the Parliatnent also eoocted Act 22 of 1972 amending the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Con~ trot l,aws) Act 1957, purporting to enable the Central Government to make the Rent Control L'lws in the sel\feral States applicable to Cantonment areas from diltes anterior to the dates of notification and further purporting to validate cer~ tain pre-existing decrees. In the meanwhile, taking advantage of the decision in the case of lndu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi and Anr., the appellant- tenant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 597 /70 for a declaration that the decree obtained against him was a nullity and incapable of being executed. This iapplication 'vas allowed by the <;ourt on November, 19, 1971. But, after the enactment of Act 22 of 1972, on January II, 1973 the landlords filed Darkhast No. 104 of 1973 to execute the decree in their favour. The appellant-tenant raised three objections, namely, (i) subsequent to the compromise decree there was a • · .. • ) • JAJSINGH V. MAMANCHAND 225 fresh agreement of lease between the Iaridlords and himself; (ii) the provisions A of the lam.ending Act 22 of 1972 were not extensive enough to save the decree :dated July 12, 1967; (iii) in any case, the decision in Miscellaneous Appli- cation No. 597 /70 holding the decree to be a nullity operated as res judicau~ between the parties. The first objection was left open by all the Courts for fu- ture adjudication, as the landlord denied the existence of any fresh agreement. The second and third objections alone were considered. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court overruled them and hence this appeal by special le:tve B and two other similar appea1s. Disn1issing the appeals the· Court, HELD: 1. In lndu Bhushan Bose v. Ra1na Sundari and Anr., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 443, the Supreme Court agreed with the view of the Calcutta and Rajaslhan High Courts and held that the power of the State Legislature to legislate in respect of landlord and tenant of buildings was to be found not in Entry 18 of the List II, but in Entries 6, 7 and 13 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Consti- tution and that such po,~·er was circun1scribed by the exclusive p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.