KESHAVLAL JETHALAL SHAH versus MOHANLAL BHAGWANDAS & ANR.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 02-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KESHAVLAL JETHALAL SHAH 
v. 
MOHANLAL BHAGW ANDAS & ANR. 
April 2, 1968 
[M. HmAYATULLAH, C.J., J. c. SHAH, s. M. Soou, 
R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G. K. MITTER, 
C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 
Bonibay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 57 
of 1947, s. 29(1) 
a11d 
(2)-amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965-
whether anumded s. 29(2) applied to a case where decision of appellate 
Court given before the ammded section came into fo~r if High 
Court could o,,/y exercise power under s. 115 C.P.C. in such case. 
In a suit filed by the respondent in July 1958 for a decree in cject-
ment, arrears of rent and other dues against the appellant in respect of 
certain premises in Ahmcdabad. the trial court dismissed the claim for 
ejectment and passed a decree for arrears. of rent and pennitted increases. 
Jn appeal .under s. 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates Control Act 57 of 1947 the decree was eonfirmed on February 25, 
1963. 
Bv s. 29(2) of that Act, as it then stood, no appeal lay against 
any decision in appeal under sub .. ection ( 1) from the order of the trial 
court. 
The respondent therefore moved the High Court by a petition 
under s. 115 CPC. While this petition was pending Bombay Act 57 of 
1947 was amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965 and it was provided in 
the amended s. 29(2) that while no appeal would lie against any decision 
in appeal under sul><;eetion ( 1). the ffigh Court may, .for the purpose 
of satisfying itself that a decision in appeal was according to Jaw, call for 
the case and pass such order os it thinks fit. 
On the assumption that the 
amended Act applied to all petitions pending before it, the High Court. 
after a detailed examination of the case, reversed the order of the appel-
late court and decreed the respondent's suit. 
In appeal by special leave to this Court, it was contended, i11ter aJia. 
by the appellant that the order of the appellate court which had acquired 
finality, subject to the exercise of the limited jurisdiction by the ffigh 
Court under s. 115 C.P.C. could not. be set aside in exercise of the juris-
diction under the amended s. 29(2) in t.he abs·ence of a provision in the 
Amending Act making the an1endmcnt retrospective. 
HELD : The High Court exercised the jurisdiction invested by Act 
18 of 1965 in respect of a judgment which had become final a Jong time 
before that Act. The appeal must therefore be allowed, the order passed 
by the High Court set aside and the proceedings remande<l to the High 
Court to deal v."ith and dispo~ of the revision application on the footing 
that it wns governed by s. 115 C.P.C. under which it was purported to 
have been filed. [630 G]. 
When the revision application v:as entertained under s. 115 of th~ 
Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court assumed to itself 
a limited 
jurisdiction conferred by that ~ection, anJ. in the absence of any express 
provision made in the Amending Act, the jurisdiction conferred by that 
seetion eould not be extended. r629 H-630 BJ. 
There is nothing in the language of s. 29(2) as amended, which may 
indicate that it was intenccd to be retros~cctive in operation. [630 DJ. 
' 
I 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968) 3 S.C.R. 
Indira Sohan Lal \', Custodian of Evacuee Property, 
Delhi [1955) 
A 
2 S.C.R. 1117 and Moti Rw11 v. Smaj Bhan [1960] 2 S.C.R. 896; distin-
RUisbed. 
Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haii Safibhai, (1964] 
5 S.C.R. 157; Colonial Sugc.r Refi11ing Company Ltd, v. Irving, [1905] 
A.C. 369; Garikapatti Veerava v. N. Subbiah Choudhury [1957] S.C.R. 488; 
Nana Bin Aha v. Sheku Bin Andu, I.L.R. 32 Bom. 337 and Dafedar 
Niranjan Singh & Anr. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property (Punjab) & Anr. 
[1962] I S.C.R. 214; referred to. 
In conferring upon the High Court a wider jurisdiction for the pur-
pose of determining whether the decision of the appellate court was 
acoording to law, the Legislature did not attempt to legislate in the matter 
of procedure. It expressly sought to confer upon the High Court power 
to reopen questions which till then were to be deemed finally decided. 
[630 C]. 
Section 29(2) as amended in terms confers jurisdiction upon the High 
Court to call for the record of a case for the purpose of satisfying itself 
that. the decision in appeal was according to law, which the High Court 
did not possess before the . date of the Amending Act. It could not be 
said that tho amending clause only sought to explain an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.