SAT NARAIN SAINI Vs. SITA WATI AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Sat Narain Judgment-debtor against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Rohtak, dated August 9, 1979, dismissing his objections in an execution petition.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Smt. Sitawati alias Reno was the owner of a shop situated in Rohtak which was constructed in 1966. She filed a suit for its possession against Ram Prakash and Sat Narain on the ground that she had given the premises on lease to the former who had sublet those to the latter. She further alleged that the premises had been constructed in 1966 and therefore, the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not applicable, as the shops constructed after 1962 had been exempted from the operation of the Act. Ram Prakash defendant did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. Satya Narain defendant contested the suit. On December 16, 1976 a compromise was arrived at between Smt. Sitawati plaintiff and Sat Narain defendant by which an order of ejectment was passed against the latter but he was given two years time to vacant the premises. There was also a compromise regarding payment of rent but that is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the present case.

(3.) The decree-holder after the expiry of the said period started execution proceedings against Sat Narain judgment-debtor. He filed objections in the execution petition to the effect that after the passing of the decree the Act was amended by Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1978, (Act No. 16 of 1978) and the provision which exempted the applicability of the Act to the shop stood repealed with retrospective effect. He further stated that in view of the repeal of that provision, the Act became applicable to the shop with restropective effect and the decree of the Civil Court became a nullity. The objection petition was contested by the decree-holder, who pleaded that the decree was validly passed by the Civil Court and the amendment of the Act on a subsequent date did not effect its validity. The learned Executing Court held that the decree remained valid even after the Act was amended. Consequently, it dismissed the objections of the judgment-debtor. He has come up in revision against that order of the Court.