HAJI DIN CHHATRIWALA Vs. ABINASH CHANDER GOYLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisionpetition is by the landlord Haji Mohd. Din, who sued for the eviction of the tenant Abinash Chander from the premises in disputes-No. 94, Baird Road, New Delhi under section 13(1) (k) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. XXXVIII of 1952). The suit was filed on the 20th of August, 1955. The relevant part of section 13 (l) (k) is in these terms.

(2.) Section 57 is the repeal section and is in these terms : -

(3.) The first contention raised by Mr. Hardyal Hardy, learned counsel for the petitioner, is, that under section 55 the Court executing the decree can reopen the decree or order passed, if it is satisfied that the decree or order could not have been passed if this Act had been in force on the date of the decree or order. It is maintained that under the 1958-Act no decree can be passed. It is only an order for eviction that can bepassed, and, therefore, section 55 will not come into play so far as the decrees under the 1952-Act are concerned. This argument is wholly fallacious because if it is accepted, it will completely nullify the provisions of section 55 of the 1958-Act. If the provisions of sections 53 to 55 and 57 are read together, there is no manner of doubt that the intention of the legislature is clear that any decree passed under the 1952-Act could be reopened at the instance of the tenant if to that decree the provisions of the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956, were applicable. In my view the lower appellate Court has come to the correct conclusion and has rightly allowed the application.