LexVIJENDRA NATH & ORS. versus JAGDISH RAI AGGARWAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VIJENDRA NATH & ORS. A I'. JAGDISH RAI AGGARWAL & ORS. December 2, 1966 (R. S. BACHAWAT AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.) B Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearan") Act (96 of 1956), s. 19- Section requiring landlord to obtain pern1issio,1 of competent authority before ext·cutlng eviction decree 1gainst tenant-Execution application fil .. d a/ler complying with section-Appi,cation consigMd to records pend. in~ ttnant's appeal against decree-S. 19 amended pending appe.d-Fr.sh execution app/icatio11 filed after dismissal of appeal-Whether can be filed without obtaining fresh p!rmission under amended section. C The predecessor in interest of the appellants wa.s a tenant in a slum are.a in Delhi under the respondents. On December 5, 1960 the respondents obtained a decru for eviction against the tenant. On June 19, 1964, the respondents obtained permission for the execution of the decree from the competent authority under s. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (Act of 96 of 1956). On or about July 22, 1964 the r.~pondents apl'lied for execution of the decree. The tenant's objec. D lions to the execult0n application failed and his appeal and thereafter a revision before the High Coun also failed. During the pendency··of the tenant's appeal the application for execution filed on July 22, 1964 was consigned to the record room. For this reason on March 23, 1965 after the decision of the High Court the respondents filed another application for execution of the decree. Meanwhile s. 19 of the Slum Areas Act bad been ame,1ded by Act 43 of 1964. The tenant filed fresh objection• to the execution application dated March 23, 1965 contending that •he E respondents were not entitled to execute the decree without obtainin& 'l fresh permission from the cor.ipetent authority under the new s. 19. The objections were dismissed. On the HiWi Court also deciding against the tenant, the appellant who had meanwhile been brought on record as bb legal representatives, came 10 this court by special leave. HELD : The new section 19 inserted by the Amending Act did not affect a pending execution proceeding either expressly or by necessary F implication and made no change in the Jaw ?pplicable to the proceeding. It <lid not provide for stay of the pending proceeding nor did it otherwjse show any clear intention to vary the rjghts of the parties in the procC'cdiPg. !141 G-HJ The rights of tl1e parties in the penc: ng npplication had to ho d·ooidcd according to the law as it existed on July 22, 1964, when the apo!lcotioo was filed and the execution of the decree comm;:nced. Under the J;l\v thL'n G in force the application \Vas competent. The ohjcc1ions by the tenant \\'Crc there-for~ rightly d;smisscd. f 142 BJ C1v11. \rl'ELLATE JuR1sorn10~: Civil Appeal No. 1314 of 1966. Appeal hy 'nccial lca,·e from the ju<lgmcnt and order dated D• ·~1hcr 15, 1965 of the Punjah High Court at Delhi in Civil Re- ,;,,_,,., No.' 393-D of 1965. H P. S. Safeer. for the appellants. /. M. Lall and 0. P. Verma, for the respondents. I A B c D E F G H VIJENDRA NATH v. JAGDISH RAJ (Bachawat, J.) 139 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. One S. N. Bhatnagar was the tenant of a buil- ding in a slum area in Delhi under the respondents. On December, 5, 1960, the respondents obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant. By this decree, the tenant was allowed time to vacate till March 2, 1963. On June 19, 1964, the respondents obtained the permission for the execution of the decree from the competent authority under s. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (Act No. XCVI of 1956). Section 19 as it stood before December, 21 1964 wai; in these terms :- "19. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no pe1son who has obtained any decree or order for the eviction of a ten· ant from any building in a slum area shall be entitled to execute such decree or orde1 except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. (2) Any person desiring to ob<ain the permission refer- red to in sub-section (I) shall make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and con- taining such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of such application the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the tenant of being heard and after making such summary inquiry
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.