VIJENDRA NATH Vs. JAGDISH RAI AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One S. N. Bhatnagar was the tenant of a building 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 was in these terms:-

(2.) Before us, learned Counsel on both sides agreed that on or about July 22, 1964, the respondents applied for execution of the decree. The tenant filed objections to the execution application. The objections were dismissed on August 7, 1964. An appeal against this order was dismissed on March l9, 1965, and a revision petition to the High Court was dismissed on March 24, 1965. In the meantime the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964 (Act No. XLIII of 1964) which came into force on December 21, 1964, substituted for Sectiol3 19 of the principal Act the following Section:-

(3.) Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 19 inserted by the Amending Act bars the institution of any suit for obtaining a decree for the eviction of any tenant from any building in a slum area after the commencement of the Amending Act without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. This provision has no application the present case because before the commencement of the Amending Act the respondents had instituted a suit and obtained a decree for the eviction of the tenant. Sub-section 1 (a) of the newly inserted S. 19 imposes a bar on the execution of a decree for the eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum, area obtained in any suit instituted before the commencement of the Amending Act without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. The bar under Section 19 operates notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. In granting or refusing the permission under the new Section 19, the competent authority is required to take into account certain matters which it was not bound to take into account under the repealed Section 19. Now on July 22, 1964 before the commencement of the Amending Act, the respondents had filed the application for execution of the decree for eviction of the tenant after obtaining the requisite permission of the competent authority under the repealed Section 19. Under the law then in force this application for execution was competent. The question is whether this application is rendered incompetent by the absence of a fresh permission from the competent authority under the newly inserted Section 19.