LexSARWAN KUMAR AND ANR. versus MADAN LAL AGGARWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SARWAN KUMAR AND ANR. v. MADAN LAL AGGARWAL FEBRUARY 6, 2003 B [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: -r c Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14 and 50-Decree for ejectment qua commercial tenancy by civil court-Subsequent decision of Supreme Court declaring commercial tenancy heritable-Thus civil court lacked jurisdiction to pass such decree-However Executing Court and High Court holding decree having attained.finality could not be declared nullity-On appeal, held decree ~· passed by Court having_ no jurisdiction would be a nullity, thus inexecutable- D Objection to execution of decree can be taken whenever it is sought to be enforced including stage of execution of decree or any other collateral proceedi11gs. Judicial Process-Interpretation of law-Retrospectivity of- Held, when the Court decides that the interpretation given to a particular provision earlier ~ E was not legal, it declares the law as it stood right from the beginning - Hence it is retrospective. Doctrines: Doctrine of "prospective overruling" -Applicability-Discussed F The suit premises was let out on monthly rent for commercial purposes to predecessor-in-interest, of the appellants. Respondent-landlord filed a suit for possession and mesn~ profits. Ex-parte decree was passed. Respondent-decree holder then filed execution application. Appellant - judgment-debtors filed objections under Section 47 CPC on the ground G that commercial tenancy in the State of Delhi was heritable and would devolve on the legal heirs under ordinary law of succession in view of the law declared by this Court in Gian Devi Anand's case* and, therefore, civil court lacked the inherent jurisdiction to pass such a decree; and that after -.. the death of the statutory tenant the possession of the judgment-debtors H did not become unlawful and illegal and they continued to have estate in 918 - SARWANKUMARv.M.L.AGGARWAL 919 the tenanted premises. Executing Court overruled the objections holding A that it could not go beyond the decree which had obtained finality and also could not refuse to execute the decree passed by civil court only because subsequently this Court in Gian Devi Anand"s case held that commercial tenancy was heritable. Aggrieved appellants filed a writ petition. High Court upheld the order of the executing court. Hence the B present appeal. Appellant contended that this Court does not legislate and only interprets the law and when a particular provision is interpreted then it in effect declares the law as it is stood from the beginning as per its decision and it would be deemed as if that was the law; that it is open to the Court C to protect the earlier decision to make the rule applicable prospectively and save the decisions which have already become final or have been given effect to; and that in the absence of any specific observations to the effect that the law declared in Gian Devi Anand's case would be prospective in operation and would not apply to the decrees already passed by the civil courts, it cannot be held that the rule laid down in Gian Devi Anand's case D would not apply to the decrees which had been passed by the civil court having no jurisdiction to do so. Respondent contended that Gian Devi Anand's case would be prospective in application and would not be applicable to the decree which was passed prior to the judgment in Gian Devi Anand's case. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I The doctrine of "prospective overruling" was initially made applicable to the matters arising under the Constitution but it is understood the same has been made applicable to the matters arising under F the statutes as well. Under the doctrine of "prospective overruling" the law declared by the Court applies to the cases arising in future only and its applicability to the cases which have attained finality is saved because the repeal would otherwise work hardship to those who had trusted to its existence. Invocation of doctrine of "prospective overruling" is left to the G discretion of the court to mould with the justice of the cause or the matter before the court. This Court while deciding Gian Devi Anand's case did not hold that the law declared by it would be prospective in operation. It did not lay down any new law but only interpreted the existing law which was in force. When the Court decides that the interpretation given to a particular pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.