MOTI RAM versus SURAJ BHAN & OTHERS.

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 03-02-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

896. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
I960 
aSSeSSment appeals and, aS We have dismissed those 
-
appeals, these appeals also must be dismissed. 
S.N. Namasfoayam 
I th 
lt !] t] 
. 
] 
d" 
. 
d 
"th 
Chettiar 
n 
e resu 
a 
ie six a ppea s are 1sm1sse 
w1 
v. 
costs. 
As the appeals were consolidated there will be 
Commissioner of one set of costs. 
Inconie~Tax, 
Madras. 
February 3 
Appeals dismissed. 
MOTI RAM 
v. 
SURAJ BHAN & OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo AND 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Rent Control-Ejectment--Statute permitting ejcctment for 
reconstruction of building~Subscquent atnendment making of provi-
sion more stingent--Whcther retrospective-Statute making appellate 
order final-Before making of order statute amended by providing 
revision to High Court-If amendment applies to pending appeal-
East Punjah Urban 
Rent Restriction Act, r949 (E.P. 3 of r949, 
ss. r3(3)(a)(iii) and r4(4)-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 
(Amendment) Act, r956. (Punj. 29 of r956). ss. 2 and 3. 
On August 28, 1956 the respondent l applied to the Rent 
Controller for the eviction of the appellant from a shop under s. 13 
of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, inter alia 
on the ground that he wanted to reconstruct the shop. 
On 
the date, s. 13(3) (a)(iii) of the Act provided that a landlord may 
apply for the eviction of his tenant if he required the building 
for reconstruction or for its replacement· by another building or 
for the erection of other ,building. 
Section 15 provided for an 
appeal from the order of the Rent Controller and sub-s. (4) of 
s. 15 provided that the decision of the appellate authority, and 
subject only to such decision, the order of the Controller shall be 
final. 
By Amending Act 29 of r956, which came into force on 
September 24, 1956, ss. l3(3)(a)(iii) and r5 
were amended; 
amended 
s. l3(3)(a)(iii) permitted ejectment if the landlord 
required it to carry out any building \Vork at the instance of the 
Government or Local Authority or any Improvement Trust under 
some improvement or development scheme or if it had become 
unsafe or unfit for human habitation; and new s. 15(5) introduced 
by the amending Act, gave to the High Court power to call for 
and examine the records relating to any order passed under the 
Act for satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such 
order. The application for eviction was dismissed by the Rent 
Contrpller and an appeal to the appellate .authority also failed. 
Respondent l went to the High Court in revision and the High 
Court decreed eviction holding that the shop was required for 
' 
-
I 
r 
-
-
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
897 
reconstruction within the meaning of the unamended s. l3(3)(a) 
rg6o 
(iii). 
The appellant contended that the amended provisions of 
s. 15 which permitted a revision to be filed before the High Court 
Moti Ram 
were inapplicable as the case was governed by the law as it stood 
v. 
on the date when the application for ejectment was made and 
Suraj Bhan 
that Respondent l was not 
entitled to the decree as the 
case did not fall within the provisions of. amended s. l3(3)(a)(iii) G . d-dk 
] 
h. h 
t' 
d 
l' bl t 
h 
a;en raga ar • 
w rc were retrospec ive an were app rca e o t e case. 
Held, that the revision application before the High Court 
was competent and the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere. 
Finality could ·be attached to the decision of the appellate 
authority only after the decision was made and not before. But 
at the time when the appellate authority decided the matter in 
the present case the amending\ section had come into force and 
the appellate order could not claim finality under the earlier 
provision. 
Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi. 
[1955] 2 S.C.R. n17, followed. 
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Commis-
sioner, (1924) L.L.R. 9 Lah. 284; Colonial Sugar Refining Co. 
Ltd. v. Irving, (1905) A.C. 369, and Garikapatti Veeraya v. 
N. Subbiah Choudhury, [1957] S.C.R. 488, referred to. 
Held, 
further that the provisions of amended s. l3(3)(a)(iii) 
were not retrospective and did not apply to the present case, 
The amendment was in regard to a matter of substantive law as 
it affected the substantive. rights of the landlord. 
An amend-
ment which affected vested rights operated prospectively unless 
it was made retrospective expressly or by n_ecessary implication. 
Ram Parshad Hatwai, Ludhiana v. Mukhtiar Chand, l.L.R. 
195

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.