http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: VIJENDRA NATH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAGDISH RAI AGGARWAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1966

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SHELAT, J.M.

CITATION:  1967 AIR  600            1967 SCR  (2) 138

ACT: 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 records  pending  tenant’s appeal  against  decree-S. 19 amended  pending  appeal-Fresh execution  application  filed  after  dismissal  of  appeal- Whether  can  be filed without  obtaining  fresh  permission under amended section.

HEADNOTE: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

clear intention to vary the rights of the parties in the 141 G-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]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL,  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.  1314  of 1966. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated December 15, 1965 of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Civil Revision No.393-D of 1965. P.   S. Safeer, for the appellants. I.   M. Lall and O. P. Verma, for the respondents. 139 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat,  J. One S. N. Bhatnagar was the tenant of a  buil- ding  in  a slum area in Delhi under  the  respondents.   On December,  5,  1960, the respondents obtained a  decree  for eviction  of  the tenant.  By this decree,  the  tenant  was allowed  time  to vacate till March 2, 1963.   On  June  19, 1964,  the  respondents  obtained  the  permission  for  the execution  of the decree from the competent authority  under s.  19  of the Slum Areas (Improvement and  Clearance)  Act, 1956, (Act No. XCVI of 1956).  Section 19 as it stood before December, 21 1964 was in these terms :-               "19. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in               any other law for the time being in force,  no               person  who has obtained any decree  or  order               for the eviction of a tenant from any building               in  a slum area shall be entitled  to  execute               such decree or order except with the  previous               permission   in  writing  of   the   competent               authority.               (2)   Any   person  desiring  to  obtain   the               permission  referred  to  in  sub-section  (1)               shall  make an application in writing  to  the               competent  authority  in such  form  and  con-               taining such particulars as may be prescribed.               (3)   On  receipt  of  such  application   the               competent    authority,   after   giving    an               opportunity  to the tenant of being heard  and               after  making  such summary inquiry  into  the               circumstances  of the case as it  thinks  fit,               shall  by order in writing either  grant  such               permission or refuse to grant such permission.               (4)   Where the competent authority refuses to               grant  the permission it shall record a  brief               statement of the reasons for such refusal  and               furnish a copy thereof to the applicant." Before  us, learned counsel on both sides agreed that on  or about  July 22, 1964, the respondents applied for  execution of the decree.  The tenant filed objections to the execution application.   The  objections were dismissed on  August  7, 1964.   An appeal against this order was dismissed on  March 19,  1965,  and a revision petition to the  High  Court  was dismissed on March 24, 1965.  In the meantime the Slum Areas (Improvement  and  Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964  (Act  No. XLIII  of 1964) which came into force on December 21,  1964, substituted  for  section  19  of  the  principal  Act   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

following section :--               "19.  Proceedings for eviction of tenants  not               to   be  taken  without  permission   of   the               competent    authority-(I)     Notwithstanding               anything contained in any other law for the               140               time  being in force, no person shall,  except               with the previous permission in writing of the               competent authority,-               (a)   institute, after the commencement of the               Slum   Areas   (Improvement   and   Clearance)               Amendment  Act, 1964, any suit  or  proceeding               for  obtaining  any decree or  order  for  the               eviction of a tenant from any building or land               in a slum area; or               (b)   where any decree or order is obtained in               any suit or proceeding instituted before  such               commencement for the eviction of a tenant from               any  building  or land in such  area,  execute               such decree or order.               (2)   Every  person  desiring  to  obtain  the               permission  referred  to  in  sub-section  (1)               shall  make an application in writing  to  the               competent   authority   in   such   form   and               containing   such   particulars  as   may   be               prescribed.               (3)   On  receipt  of  such  application,  the               competent    authority,   after   giving    an               opportunity to the parties of being heard  and               after  making  such summary inquiry  into  the               circumstances  of the case as it  thinks  fit,               shall  by  order in writing, either  grant  or               refuse to grant such permission               (4)   In  granting  or refusing to  grant  the               permission   under   sub-section   (3),    the               competent  authority shall take  into  account               the following factors, namely,-               (a)   whether alternative accommodation within               the means of the tenant would be available  to               him if he were evicted;               (b)   whether the eviction is in the  interest               of  improvement  and  clearance  of  the  slum               areas;               (c)   such  other factors, if any, as  may  be               prescribed.               (5)   Where the competent authority refuses to               grant the permission, it shall record a  brief               statement of the reasons for such refusal  and               furnish a copy thereof to the appellant." During  the  pendency  of the appeal from  the  order  dated August 7, 1964, the application for execution filed on  July 22,  1964, had been consigned to the record room.  For  this reason  on  March 23, 1965, the  respondents  filed  another application for execution of the decree.  The object of this application  was to revive the substantive  application  for execution  which  was filed on July 22, 1964 and  which  was still pending.  The application made on March 23, 1965, must be  regarded as a continuation of the  execution  proceeding commenced  on  July  22,  1964.   The  tenant  filed   fresh objections  to  the execution of the decree.   He  contended that the respondents were not entitled to execute the decree without obtaining a fresh 141 permission from the competent authority under the new s.  19 inserted  by  the  Slum Areas  (Improvement  and  Clearance)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Amendment  Act, 1964.  The objections were dismissed by  the executing court on April 27, 1965.  The order was  confirmed by the appellate court on June 9, 1965.  A revision petition to  the  High  Court was dismissed  on  December  15,  1965. During the pendency of the revision petition the tenant died and  the appellants were brought on the record as his  legal representatives.  The appellants have now filed this  appeal by special leave. Sub-section  (1)(a) of section 19 inserted by  the  Amending Act bars the institution of any suit for obtaining a  decree for  the eviction of any tenant from any building in a  slum area after the commencement of the Amending Act without  the previous  permission in writing of the competent  authority. This  provision  has  no application  to  the  present  case because  before  the commencement of the  Amending  Act  the respondents had instituted a suit and obtained a decree  for the  eviction of the tenant.  Sub-section 1(a) of the  newly inserted  s. 19 imposes a bar on the execution of  a  decree for  the  eviction of a tenant from any building in  a  slum area obtained in any suit instituted before the commencement of  the  Amending  Act without the  previous  permission  in writing  of the competent authority.  The bar under  section 19 operates notwithstanding anything contained in any  other law  for the time being in force.  In granting  or  refusing the  permission  under  the new section  19,  the  competent authority  is required to take into account certain  matters which  it was not bound to take into account under  the  re- pealed  section  19.   Now  on  July  22,  1964  before  the commencement of the Amending Act, the respondents had  filed the application for execution of the decree for eviction  of the  tenant after obtaining the requisite permission of  the competent  authority under the repealed section  19.   Under the  law then in force, this application for  execution  was competent.   The  question is whether  this  application  is rendered  incompetent by the absence of a  fresh  permission from  the  competent  authority  under  the  newly  inserted section 19. Unless  the Amending Act affects the pending execution  pro- ceeding  by express words or by necessary  implication,  the rights  of  the parties in the pending  proceeding  must  be decided  according to the law in force at the time when  the proceeding  was  commenced  and the  decree-holder  will  be entitled  to  continue the proceeding  without  obtaining  a fresh  permission  from the competent authority.   We  think that  the new section 19 inserted by the Amending  Act  does not  affect a pending execution proceeding either  expressly or  by necessary implication and makes no change in the  law applicable to the proceeding.  The newly inserted section 19 does not provide for stay of the pending proceeding nor does it otherwise show any clear intention to vary the rights  of the parties in the 142 proceeding.  If we are to hold that the pending  application for  execution is liable to be dismissed in the  absence  of the previous permission of the competent authority under the newly  inserted  section  19,  the  decree-holder  would  be entirely   without  a  remedy  in  a  case  where  a   fresh application  for  execution would be barred  by  limitation. The legislature could not have intended such a result.   The rights  of  the parties in the pending application  must  be decided according to the law as it existed on July 22, 1964, when  the  application was filed and the  execution  of  the decree  commenced.   Under  the  law  then  in  force,   the application  was  competent.  The objections  filed  by  the tenant  were,  therefore  rightly dismissed  by  the  courts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

below. In  the  result the appeal is dismissed  with  costs.   G.C. Appeal dismissed. 143