1990 (3) TMI 366 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compromise decree dated July 12, 1967, under Amending Act 22 of 1972.
2. Applicability of res judicata to the decision in Miscellaneous Application No. 597 of 1970.
3. Validity of a decree obtained before the notification under Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Compromise Decree Dated July 12, 1967, under Amending Act 22 of 1972:

The primary question was whether the compromise decree dated July 12, 1967, was saved by Amending Act 22 of 1972. Initially, there was a conflict of views regarding the competence of the State Legislature to legislate on the regulation of house accommodation in Cantonment areas. The Supreme Court in Indu Bhusan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi & Anr. held that only Parliament had the competence to legislate on this matter. To address the issues arising from this decision, the Central Government issued a notification on December 29, 1969, extending the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to the Kirkee Cantonment area. However, this notification was prospective and could not save decrees already passed. Therefore, Parliament enacted Act 22 of 1972, which amended the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, to validate pre-existing decrees.

Section 3, sub-section 4 of the amended Act was crucial. It provided that any decree or order made by any court, tribunal, or authority in accordance with any law for the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation in the State would be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provisions of the Rent Control Act as extended to the Cantonment. The Court held that this provision was wide enough to save all decrees and orders made by the wrong application of a State rent control and house accommodation legislation to a Cantonment area. Consequently, the decree obtained by the respondents was saved by the provisions of Section 3, sub-section 4 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, as amended by Act 22 of 1972.

2. Applicability of Res Judicata to the Decision in Miscellaneous Application No. 597 of 1970:

The second issue was whether the decision of the executing court in Miscellaneous Application No. 597 of 1970, which declared the decree to be a nullity, operated as res judicata between the parties. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors. v. Dessibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, which stated that a question relating to the jurisdiction of a court could not be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the court. If a court erroneously holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not operate as res judicata. Similarly, if a court assumes jurisdiction it does not possess, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties.

In the present case, the executing court had refused to execute the decree on the ground that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, did not apply to buildings in Cantonment areas. This defect was removed by Act 22 of 1972, which validated all decrees obtained on the basis that the Bombay rent law applied to the Kirkee Cantonment area. Therefore, the earlier decision holding that the decree was a nullity did not operate as res judicata. The Court found no substance in the appellant's submission and dismissed the appeal.

3. Validity of a Decree Obtained Before the Notification under Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957:

In Civil Appeal No. 709 of 1978, the only question was about the validity of a decree obtained before the date of the notification issued under Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957. The Court, referencing its earlier analysis, decided this question against the appellant, affirming the validity of such decrees under the amended Act.

Conclusion:

All appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the validity of the compromise decree dated July 12, 1967, under the amended Act, and holding that the earlier decision declaring the decree a nullity did not operate as res judicata. The Court's decisions reinforced the legislative intent to validate decrees affected by jurisdictional issues in Cantonment areas.