JAISINGH JAIRAM TYAGI Vs. MAMANGHAND RATILAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in Civil Appeal No. 708 of 1978, Mamanchand Ratilal Agarwal and others, who are the landlords of premises bearing door No. 16 in Nawa Bazar Area Kirkee Cantonment, filed Civil Suit No. 1730 of 1964 against the appellant-tenant for recovery of possession and arrears of rent under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was decreed. There was an appeal by the tenant. It resulted in a compromise decree dated July 12, 1967 by which some time was given to the tenant to vacate the premises. As the tenant failed to vacate the premises within the time given to him, the landlords were compelled to take out execution.

(2.) On April 29, 1969, in the case of Indu Bhusan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi, (1970) 1 SCR 443, this Court held that Parliament alone had and the State Legislature did not have the necessary competence to make a law in regard to the "regulation of house accommodation in Cantonment areas". The expression "regulation of house accommodation" was interpreted as not to be confined to allotment only but as extending to other incidents, such as termination of existing tenancies and eviction of persons in possession of house accommodation etc. To get over the situation created by Indu Bhusan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi on December 29, 1969, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, extending the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to the Kirkee and other Cantonment areas. On June 2, 1972, the Parliament also enacted Act 22 of 1972 amending the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, purporting to enable the Central Government to make the rent control laws in the several States applicable to Cantonment areas from dates anterior to the dates of notification and further purporting to validate certain pre-existing decrees. In the meanwhile, taking advantage of the decision in the case of Indu Bhusan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi, the appellant-tenant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 597 of 1970 for a declaration that the decree obtained against him was a nullity and incapable of being executed. This application was allowed by the Court on November 19, 1971. But, after the enactment of Act 22 of 1972, on January 11, 1978, the landlords filed Darkhast No. 104 of 1973 to execute the decree in their favour. The tenant raised various objections. One of the objections was that subsequent to the compromise decree there was a fresh agreement of lease between the landlords and himself. This was denied by the landlords. Another objection was that the provisions of the amending Act 22 of 1972 were not extensive enough to save the decree dated July 12, 1967. The third objection was that in any case the decision in Miscellaneous Application No. 597 of 1970 holding the decree to be a nullity operated as res judicata between the parties. The first of the objections was left open by all the Courts for future adjudication. The second and third objections alone were considered, for the time being. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court overruled the second and third objections of the tenant and hence this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The first question for our consideration is whether the compromise decree dated July 12, 1967 is saved by Amending Act 22 of 1972