KANTILAL K SHAH Vs. NARAYAN H BHUREWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question about the interpretation of the provisions of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act, 1957, as amended by the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act, 1972. The facts which are not in dispute may be stated thus : The petitioner has been a tenant of two rooms on the ground floor in House No. 51, situate within the Kirkee Cantonment Board, District Poona. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the landlords of the suit premises filed Suit No. 3477 of 1964 against the petitioner in the Court of the Small Causes at Poona for possession of the suit premises, under the Bombay Rent Act. This suit was transferred on administrative grounds to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, and it was renumbered as R.C.S. No. 834 of 1965. On September 3, 1967, the respondents suit for possession of the suit premises came to be decreed by the trial Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal, viz. Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1967, in the District Court, Poona, which was dismissed on September 30, 1968. This order in appeal was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in Special Civil Application No. 2229 of 1968. On November 15, 1971, the Special Civil Application was dismissed with the result that the decree for possession passed by the trial Court was confirmed.

(2.) During the pendency of the above litigation, by a judgment pronounced on April 29, 1969 in the case of (Indu Bhusan v. Rama Sundari) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 228, the Supreme Court held that the Rent Act was not applicable to the Cantonment areas belonging to the Central Government. In the case, the Supreme Court took the view that the State Government had no power to extend the Rent Act to the cantonment area belonging to the Central Government. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Indu Bhusans case, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 700 of 1971 in the trial Court contending that the decree for possession passed in Registrar Civil Suit No. 834 of 1965 by the trial Court on September 3, 1967 was a nullity as the Court which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to decide the matter under the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) It appears that after the decision of the Supreme Court, the Central Government issued a Notification dated December 27, 1969, which was published in the Extra Ordinary Government Gazette Part II dated December 29, 1969, under the provisions of section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, extending the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act to various cantonments including the Kirkee Cantonment. According to the petitioner, this Notification was not retrospective and hence the decree for possession which was passed prior to the said Notification continued to remain a nullity even after the Notification issued by the Central Government on December 27, 1969.