LexSUNDER DASS versus RAM PRAKASH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
60
SUNDER DASS
P.
RAM PRAKASH
February 24, 1977
(P. N. BHAGWATI ANDS. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
!), lhi Rent Control !:let, 1958-Scc. 3-Pra:·i~o-lnterpretation of ~-1,1tutes
--Introduction of proviso with
1·etrospective efject-iV!1et/Jer decree
passed'
t'arfi,-,- becon1c.1 a nu!fity-Lt'gaf fiction-Whether to be carried to logical con-
clusion.
The appellant purchased in a public auction a building \vhich was evacuee
property.
Before the sale certificate was made out in fa\'our of the <tppdlant,
the possession of the building was handed over to hi1n.
He in turn let f\Ut
a shop in the said building to the respondent.
The aprelL1nt filed a suit for
eviction in the Civil Court against the respondent.
The Civil Court passed
a decree for eviction and negatived the contention oi the respondent thrit
the
Delhi Rent Control 1\ct. 1958
\~;as applicable anL!. therefore, the jurisdiction
of the CiYil Court was barred.
The Court rclL::d on section J of the Delhi
Rent Control Act which provides that nothing in the Act shall
<ippl~' to any
preinises belonging to the Government.
The decree for eviction \Vas continued
by the Appellate C:ourt and then by the High Court in Second Appeal. Before
ihc decree could be executed section 3 was atnended by adding <i proviso with
retrospective efTect, \vhich proviJed that where any premi:-.es belonging to Clover~
nment have been l~nrfully let out by any per5on,
then
notwithstanding
any
jpdgn1ent. decn:~ or order of any court the prov;sions of the i\ct \VOtild apply
to the tcn<incy.
The Executing Court held that it \\'a<; not co1npctent to it to
go into the question v,;bethcr the decree \\'as n::ndere'.1 a nullity on th<.:- ground
!hat the jurisdiction of the Civil Court \Vas out>ted bv the introduction of the
rroviso in section 3 \Vith retrospective eff<!ct since - the decree had become
tin<1l bet\\een the partie'i.
The Appellate Court upheld the said decision. The
f-Iigh Court in Second ,\ppe<1l reversed the dcci;ion of the tvvo courts b;_-Jow
;:;.nd held that the decree wa' :i nullity and coulJ not be executed.
Dismissing the ;ippeal this Court.
HELD: (I) An executing court cannot go behind the decree nor can it
question its kgality or correctness but where a decree sought to be executed
is a nullity for [acJ..: of inhetcn! jurisdiction in the court passing it, its invalidity
F
c;:;.n b,· se! ur in <In execution rrocceding. [h4C-f)j
G
H
Vidc Kirtin Sing/I \'. Cluu111111 l'a.s1u111 ll955J l S('R 177 and Set!z fliralal
Patni v. Sri Kuti Nath, P962J 2 SCR 747. followed.
(_2) Since the proviso \VrlS introduced with retrospective effect it mLst be
deemed to be part of section 3 since the time the Delhi Rent Control A<.:t was
cnnctcd. [65-D]
East End D1n:lli11gs Co. Ltd. \'. Finsbury Borough Co11ncif
(1952]
A.C.
132, '.1pprovcd.
As a rc~ult of the fiction the proviso n1ust be dcerncd to be part of s::ction
3 from the date of enactment of the Act.
The
lof!ical ar,d
inevitable conse~
qucnce of the introduction of the proviso in section 3 with retrospective effect
\voulU be to read the proviso as if it \vere part of the s~ction at the date v,.·hen
the Act v,1as enacted. and the legal fiction created by the retrospective operation
nu1st be carried to its logical extent and all the consequences and incidents
must he worked out as if the proviso forms part of the section right from
the beginning.
The phrase "notwithstanding any jt1dgment, decree or order
of any court'' in the proviso makes it denr that the legislature intended that
the finality of the judgment, decree etc .. should not stand in the way of giving
full effect to the ietrospective operation of thci proviso in section 3.
[66C-GJ
•
,•
•
SUNDER DASS v. RAM PRAKASH (Bhagwati, J.)
61
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2006
1968.
of
A
(From the Judgment and Decree dated 26-11-1961 of the Pun-
jab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Execution Second Appeal
No. 158-D of 1964).
Bishan Narain and D. N. Mishra, for the appellant.
V. S. Desai, B. P. Singh and A. K. Srivastava, for the respondent.
The fodgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal by certificate raises a short but inter-
esting question of law relating to the interpretation and effect of the
proviso to section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The dis-
pute in this appeal relates to a shop situate on the ground floor of a
building bearing MuniExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.