2003 (2) TMI 484 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a decree for ejectment passed by a civil court for a commercial tenancy in Delhi before the Supreme Court's declaration in Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar is executable.
2. Whether the decree passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction is null and void.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of prospective overruling.

Summary:

Issue 1: Executability of Decree for Ejectment
The primary issue was whether a decree for ejectment passed by a civil court for a commercial tenancy in Delhi before the Supreme Court's declaration in Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar, which held that such a tenancy is heritable, is executable. The decree-holder served a notice to quit u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and subsequently filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. An ex-parte decree was passed, and the execution application was filed. The judgment-debtors objected to the execution, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Gian Devi Anand's case, which declared commercial tenancies heritable, thereby questioning the civil court's jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Decree Passed by Court Lacking Jurisdiction
The executing court overruled the objections, stating it could not go beyond the decree. The High Court upheld this view, relying on the doctrine of res judicata. However, the Supreme Court clarified that a decree passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, including execution proceedings. The Court emphasized that the interpretation of the law in Gian Devi Anand's case relates back to the date of the law itself, making the civil court's decree non-est.

Issue 3: Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
The High Court's invocation of the doctrine of prospective overruling was deemed misplaced. The Supreme Court noted that this doctrine, initially applicable to constitutional matters, has since been extended to statutory matters. However, the Court in Gian Devi Anand's case did not specify that its ruling would be prospective. Therefore, the interpretation given by the Supreme Court applies retrospectively, invalidating the civil court's decree.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the executing court, holding that the civil court's decree for ejectment was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. The judgment-debtors could successfully object to the execution of such a decree. The appeal was accepted, and it was held that the decree obtained by the decree-holder could not be executed, with parties bearing their own costs.