S A SESHADRI AIYANGAR Vs. NARAYANA NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing an execution petition, E.P. No. 1109 of 1946 on the file of his Court.

(2.) the relevant facts are these: The property which forms the subject-matter of this controversy is a non- residential building in Besant Road, Triplicane. On 29 May, 1946, the land-lord obtained from the House Rent Controller appointed under the Madras House Rent Control Order of 1945, an order for the eviction of the tenant who was then in occupation of the premises. The tenant preferred an appeal to the Collector of Madras which was dismissed on 15 July, 1946. On 2nd August, 1946, the landlord applied to the City Civil Court for execution of the order of eviction that had been made in his favour. On the very same day, namely, 2nd August, 1946, the tenant presented a revision petition to the Government which he was entitled to do under the Madras House Rent Control Order. This order ceased to be in force on 30 September, 1946, and its place was taken by the Madras Act XV of 1946. On 13 March, 1947, that is to say, after the Madras House Rent Control Order of 1945 had ceased to be in force and the Madras Act XV of 1946 had taken its place the Provincial Government allowed the revision petition of the tenant. When this fact was brought to his notice the learned Judge in the City Civil Court dismissed the execution petition. Against that order the landlord now appeals.

(3.) The principal argument put forward on behalf of the landlord is that on 13 March, 1947, when the Government passed the order allowing the revision petition of the tenant they had no power to do so since the Madras House Rent Control Order of 1945 which alone conferred on them the requisite power was no longer in force. In substance the argument was that the source from which the Government derived their power had dried up, and that, therefore, their order was incompetent. In this connection reference was made to certain passages in Craies " Statute Law," 4 edition at page 347, where the learned author says, As a general rule, and unless it contains some special provision to the contrary, after a temporary Act has expired no proceedings can be taken upon it, and it ceases to have any further effect In Spencer V/s. Hooton (1920) 4 Munitions Appeals 67., Roche, J., held that he had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from Munitions Tribunals in proceedings taken under the Wages (Temporary Regulations) Acts by reason of the Act giving him jurisdiction having expired before the appeals came on for hearing. There is difference between the effect of expiration of a temporary Act and the repeal of a perpetual Act.