Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, and other dues filed in July 1958 by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant in respect of premises in Ahmedabad. The trial court dismissed the ejectment claim but decreed arrears of rent and permitted increases. The appellate court, acting under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, confirmed that decree on 25 February 1963. At the relevant time, Section 29(2) barred a further appeal; therefore, the decision attained finality subject only to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent moved the High Court by a petition under Section 115 CPC. While that petition was pending, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965. The amended Section 29(2), while maintaining the bar against a second appeal, allowed the High Court to call for the case and pass such order as it thought fit for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decision was according to law. Assuming that the amendment applied to all pending petitions, the High Court, after examining the case, reversed the appellate order and decreed the respondent's suit for ejectment. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The sole legal issue was whether the High Court could exercise the wider power under the amended Section 29(2) in respect of an appellate decision that had already become final before the amendment came into force. The appellant contended that the amendment was not expressly retrospective, and the finality of the earlier appellate order could not be disturbed except within the limited parameters of Section 115 CPC. The Supreme Court accepted this argument. It held that a statute conferring a new power on a court does not, without express words or necessary implication, operate to take away the finality of decisions rendered under the previous law. The 1965 Gujarat Act did not contain any provision making the amendment retrospective. Consequently, the High Court erred in treating the petition as one under the amended Section 29(2) and in upsetting a decision that had attained finality. The appeal was allowed; the order of the High Court was set aside, and the petition under Section 115 CPC was restored to its original number for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Finality of Appellate Orders - Amendment Not Retrospective - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Sections 29(1), 29(2); Gujarat Act 18 of 1965 - An appellate order confirmed under Section 29 of the rent act before the 1965 amendment attained finality and could not be reopened by the High Court under wider powers conferred by the amended Section 29(2) absent an express retrospective provision. The court held that the amending act did not provide for retrospective operation, so the High Court erred in setting aside the final order under the new provision. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amended Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965) applied to a case where the decision of the appellate court was given before the amended section came into force, or whether the High Court could only exercise power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in such a case.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Supreme Court set aside High Court's order decreeing ejectment. Petition under Section 115 CPC restored to its original file for hearing and disposal according to law.
Law Points
- retrospective operation of statutes
- finality of appellate orders
- limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC
- amendment not retrospective unless expressly provided
