RAM PARSHAD Vs. ONKAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the order ofShri Des Raj Dhameja, Additional District Judge, Delhi, setting aside the order of the executing Court and accepting the appeal of the respondent-tenant. The learned Judge has held that in respect of the premises covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called 'the 1958 Act') but exempted from the operation of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 Act') the tenant was not liable to be evicted in execution of a decree for eviction passed against him by the civil court before the 1958 Act came ed after the 1st of June, 1951, but before 9th of June, 1955, and the case was, therefore, covered by section 50 of the 1958 Act and the proceedings for his eviction stood abated and the decree was inexecutable.

(2.) The landlord contested this application and the parties went on trial. On the basis of evidence produced, the executing court held that the construction of the premises had been completed betweenhdates referred to in the application and that the 1958 Act also applied to it, but because the judgment-debtor had ceased to be a tenant after the decree of ejectment had been passed against him and no proceedings for his eviction were actually pending in court when the 1958 Act came into force, sub-section (2) of section 50 of the Act was not attracted. With these findings the application was dismissed. Aggrieved from this the tenant went up in appeal. The Additional District Judge, while affirming the finding of the trial court that the premises had been completed after the 1st of June, 1951, but before 9th of June, 1955, held that the word "pending" in section 50(2) was susceptible to a wider interpretation and included cases where a decree for eviction had been passed but was not fully satisfied and that the appellant before him still continued to be a tenant within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 50 of the 1958 Act and, therefore, the execution proceedings against him stood abated. Against this order the landlord filed this second appeal in the High Court. The matter came up before a learned Single Judge. By order dated 14th of August, 1967, having regard to the importance of the question involved, the case was directed to be placed before a larger Bench. This is how this appeal is now before us.

(3.) The decision of the controversy turns on the interpretation of the relevant parts of section 50 of the 1958 Act. This section reads as under :-