CHAND BASHA Vs. PYARI BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein obtained a decree dated 12th. April, 1973 for eviction of the appellant herein O.S. No.7420 of 1971 an the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The decree granted the appellant four months' time to vacate. On 5th August, 1974 the said decree was put into execution in E.P.No. 622 of 1974. By that time Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act here in after referred to as the main Act was amended by Act XXIII of 1973. As a result of the said amendment, the building in respect of which the decree for eviction was obtained by the respondent in the said suit came within the purview of the main Act. Taking advantage of that situation, the appellant contended before the executing Court that the decree for eviction cannot be executed after the coming into force of the Amending Act. This objection was, however, refected by the executing Court, and the execution proceedings were allowed to go on.

(2.) On appeal, the lower Appellate Court also agreed with the view of the executing Court and held that under the decree for eviction passed earlier to the coming into force of the amending Act, the respondent decree-holder had acquired a vested right, that such vested rights cannot be taken away except by giving retrospective effect to the amending Act, and that therefore the decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree for eviction notwithstanding the amending Act. The view taken by both the Courts below has been challenged in this appeal by the tenant-appellant.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the Courts below have not properly appreciated the contention put forward by him. He states that it is not his case that the amending Act is retrospective in character so as to unsettle or take away any vested right. His contention before the Courts below was that in view of the amending Act the provisions of the main Act will apply to the building in respect of which the decree for eviction has been obtained by the respondent, and that as such the executing Court can-not execute the decree for eviction in the face of Section 10 of the main Act which specifically says that a tenant shall be evicted whether in execution of the decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel it is not necessary for him to question the validity of the decree on the ground that the amending Act is retrospective in character, and it is enough for him to show that notwithstanding the validity of the decree it cannot be put into execution in view of Section 10 of the principal Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies on a Bench decision of this Court in Thalai Vadivu Anandar v. Venugopala Chettiar, 1960 1 MadLJ 356, in support of his contention that the decree in this case cannot be executed after the coming into force of the amending Act.