Summary
The predecessor in interest of the appellants was a tenant in a slum area in Delhi under the respondents. On December 5, 1960 the respondents obtained a decree for eviction against the tenant. On June 19, 1964, the respondents obtained permission for the execution of the decree from the competent authority under s. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (Act of 96 of 1956).
On or about July 22, 1964 the respondents applied for execution of the decree, The tenants objections to the execution application failed and his appeal and thereafter a revision before the High Court also failed. During the pendency of the tenant's appeal the application for execution filed on July 22, 1964 was consigned to the record room. For this reason on March 23, 1965 after the decision of the High Court the respondents filed another application for execution of the decree. Meanwhile s. 19 of the Slum Areas Act had been amended by Act 43 of 1964. The tenant filed fresh objection,,, to the execution application dated March 23, 1965 contending that the respondents were not entitled to execute the decree without obtaining a fresh permission from the competent authority under the new s. 19.The objections were dismissed. On the High Court also deciding against the tenant, the appellant who had meanwhile been brought on -record as his legal representatives, came to this court by special leave.HELD : The new section 19 inserted by the Amending Act did not affect a pending execution proceeding either expressly or by necessary implication and made no change in the law applicable to the proceeding. It did not provide for stay of the pending proceeding nor did it otherwise show any clear intention to vary the rights of the parties in the 141G-H]The rights of the parties in the pending 'application had to be according to the law as it existed on July 22, 1964, when the was filed and the execution of the decree commenced.Under the law then in force the application was competent.The objections by the tenant were therefore rightly dismissed. [142 B]See the full content of this document
Extract
Vijendra Nath & Ors. VS. Jagdish Rai Aggarwal & Ors.
PETITIONER: VIJENDRA NATH & ORS.Vs.RESPONDENT: JAGDISH RAI AGGARWAL & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1966BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S.BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S.SHELAT, J.M.CITATION: 1967 AIR 600 1967 SCR (2) 138ACT: Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act (96 of 1956), s.19-Section requiring landlord to obtain permission of competent authority before executing eviction decree against tenant-Execution application filed after complying with section-Application consigned to...
See the full content of this document