K BALAKRISHNA RAO Vs. HAJI ABDULLA SAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is whether a suit for ejectment filed in respect of any non-residential building or part thereof pending before any court on the date on which the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act No. XVIII of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act') was amended by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment Act, 1964 (Act No. XI of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act') could have been proceeded with after that date. It arises in the following circumstances :

(2.) The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which ultimately become the Amending Act read as follows :-

(3.) The result of the amendment was that the buildings which had been exempted from the operation of the principal Act under clause (iii) of S.30 came within the scope of the principal Act and the relationship between landlords and tenants of such buildings was to be regulated thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. Apparently in order to give protection to tenants of such buildings against whom proceedings for eviction had been instituted in civil courts, Section 3 of the Amending Act provided that such proceedings should be treated as having abated. The proviso to Section 3 of the Amending Act however provided that nothing contained is that section should be deemed to invalidable any suit or proceeding in which the decree or order passed had been executed or satisfied in full before the date mentioned in that section, the said date being, June 10, 1964. Thus by necessary implication, Section 3 of the Amending Act was applicable even to the case of a building in respect of which a decree for eviction had been passed but had not been executed or satisfied in full before June 10, 1964. In view of the above provision, the City Civil Court dismissed the suit as having abated by its order dated December 4, 1964. The plaintiff filed two applications before the City Civil Court in March, 1965 - one under O.9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order dated December 4, 1964 dismissing the suit as having abated and another under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also filed an appeal in A.S. No. 266 of 1965 on the file of the High Court of Madras against the order of the City Civil Court dated December 4, 1964. Both the above applications were allowed by the City Civil Court on August 3, 1965. On August 13, 1965, the defendant filed an additional written statement before the City Civil Court raising the plea that the suit had actually abated by virtue of Sec. 3 of the Amending Act. He also filed two revision petitions against the order passed by the City Civil Court allowing the two applications on August 3, 1965. In the meanwhile, on an application made under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff, the suit was withdrawn to the file of the High Court and it was renumbered as C. S. No. 218 of 1965. It should be mentioned here that owing to the alteration of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the suit stood transferred to the file of the High Court on May 1, 1964 itself. The defendant died on January 15, 1968. He had made a will on January 7, 1968 appointing executors and administrators in respect of his assets and issuing directions regarding the manner in which his assets should be disposed of. By an order dated July 20, 1970 made by the High Court, the defendants Nos. 2 to 10 who had been appointed executors and administrators were impleaded as legal representatives of the defendant (who was shown as defendant No.1 thereafter). The two civil revision petitions filed by the defendant against the orders passed on August 3, 1965 by the City Civil Court and the Appeal Suit No. 266 of 1965 filed by the plaintiff against the order of the City Civil Court dated December 4, 1964 were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras by a common order on June 28, 1972, the relevant part of which read as follows :-