RAM RAKHA MAL Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the correctnsss of the decision of S.K.. Kapur J. in Sinf. Shakuntla and others v. Pi. Bhagwan Dass and others reported in (1967 (69) Punjab Law Reporter 130 (Delhi Section) was assailed by the respondents in these revision petitions, they were ordered to be placed before a Division Bench. The point of law is common to these revision petitions and it is whether permission to execute a decree for eviction passed before the coming into force of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964, was necessary,

(2.) The petitioner in all these petitions is the landlord of House No. 2767/1937 situate in Gali Ahiran, Malka Ganj, Delhi. The respondent in each of these petitions is occupying a portion of this house as a tenant under the petitioner. While Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, was in force, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956, was passed. Under section 19 of this Act, a decree for the eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum area was not executable except with the previous permission in writing of the Competent Authority constituted under this Act. On or about June 12, 1958, the petitioner filed five suits for eviction of the respondents from the respective premises occupied by them in the said house on various grounds under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. Four of the suits were decreed on April 28, 1959 but the fifth was dismissed.

(3.) However, in an appeal filed by the petitioner, the fifth suit was also decreed on December 23, 1959. Then, as required by the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Slum Act", the petitioner applied for permission to execute the decrees but permission was refused on April 28, 1962 by the Competent Authority. This Act was amended by the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act. 1964, hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act" which came into force on and from February 27,1965. Although various sections of the Slum Act were amended, these revision petitions are concerned only with the amendment of section 19 which was substituted by a new'section 19 by the Amending Act. Then on October 18. 1967, the petitioner applied for execution of all the five decrees obtained by him without applying for permission of the Competent Authority. Objection was taken by the respondents to the executability of these decrees on the ground that the requisite permission under the amended section 19 of the Slum Act had not been obtained. The execution applications were dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated February 3, 1968. The appeals filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge also failed by orders dated May 30, 1968. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court distinguished the aforesaid decision of S.K. Kapur J. inter alia, on the ground that that decision was in respect of a decree for eviction from land which had been included in the amended section 19 of the Slum Act and not in respect of a building. In our opinion, neither the trial Court nor the first appellate Court was justified in making the distinction.