9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1995 (5) TMI 245 - SC - Indian LawsWhether Rule 5 inserted in Order XV C.P.C. by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 and substituted by new Rule 5 of the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) act, 1976 is consistent with the provisions of the Principal Act as amended by the Central Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 and stands repealed? Whether Section 97(1) and (3) and of the Central Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 are retrospective and the orders passed before 1.2.1977 striking off the defence for non- compliance of Rule 5 are to be set aside? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Sec 97(3) itself has affected the vested right and given retrospective operation to the pending proceedings, apart from applicability of the law from that date. Order 5 Rule 15 is still a valid law, retrospectively operates and applies to the pending proceedings instituted prior to the State Act 57/76 and the Central Act have come into force.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality and consistency of Rule 5 of Order 15 CPC as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976. 2. Retrospective application of Section 97(1) and (3) of the Central Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality and Consistency of Rule 5 of Order 15 CPC: The respondents filed suits in the Courts of Small Causes for recovery of arrears of rent or for rent and possession from the appellants, who defaulted in payment of rent. Their defense was struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC, as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976. The appellants challenged the vires of Order 15 Rule 5, arguing it was inconsistent with the Central Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, and void under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Rule 5 of Order 15 was not inconsistent with the Central Act. The Central Act amended only Rule 2 of Order 15, while Rules 3 and 4 remained unamended, and Rule 5 was added by the U.P. Act to address specific issues in Uttar Pradesh. The Court emphasized that the State Legislature has the power to amend the Code of Civil Procedure within its jurisdiction, provided it does not conflict with the Central Act. The Court cited several precedents, including Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay and Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of U.P., to support the principle that State amendments consistent with the Central Act remain valid. The Court concluded that Rule 5 of Order 15, as amended by the U.P. Act, was not void under Article 254(1) because it did not conflict with the Central Act. The provision was designed to balance the interests of landlords and tenants, ensuring tenants pay admitted rent during litigation. The Court found no invidious discrimination under Article 14, as the provision treated all defaulting tenants uniformly, allowing them to contest the suit only if they paid the admitted rent. 2. Retrospective Application of Section 97(1) and (3) of the Central Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976: The Supreme Court examined whether Section 97(1) and (3) of the Central Act applied retrospectively to orders passed before February 1, 1977. Section 97(3) states that the provisions of the principal Act, as amended, apply to every suit, proceeding, appeal, or application pending at the commencement of the Act or filed thereafter, regardless of when the right or cause of action accrued. The Court held that Section 97(3) clearly indicated legislative intent for retrospective application, affecting pending proceedings even if the right or cause of action accrued before the commencement of the Central Act. The Court referenced the Full Bench decision in Premier Motors v. Jaswant, which upheld the retrospective application of the Central Act. The Court also addressed the argument that the Central Act's retrospective application violated vested rights. It concluded that Section 97(3) explicitly provided for retrospective application, thereby affecting vested rights and applying to pending proceedings. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 5 of Order 15 CPC as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, finding it consistent with the Central Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. The Court also confirmed the retrospective application of Section 97(1) and (3) of the Central Act, affecting pending proceedings. The appeals were dismissed without costs.
|
