9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the revisional application. 2. Applicability of the amended provision of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 3. Bona fide requirement of the landlord for reconstruction of the shop. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the Revisional Application: The appellant contended that under Section 15(4) of the Act as it stood at the time when the proceedings commenced, the decision of the appellate authority was final and could not be questioned in any court of law. The appellant argued that the subsequent amendment allowing a revisional application could not retrospectively affect the pending proceedings. However, the Supreme Court, referencing the decision in Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi, concluded that the finality prescribed by the earlier provision came into operation only after the order was made, not before. Therefore, the amended provision allowing revisional jurisdiction was applicable to the present proceedings. 2. Applicability of the Amended Provision of Section 13(3)(a)(iii): The appellant argued that the amended Section 13(3)(a)(iii) should apply, which would prevent the landlord from obtaining an order of ejectment. The Supreme Court clarified that the amendment affected substantive rights and was not procedural. It is well-settled that amendments affecting vested rights operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective. The Court found no reason to imply retrospective operation for the amendment. The Court noted that if the new provision were retrospective, all pending actions by landlords for possession would fail, a drastic consequence not intended by the Legislature. Thus, the amended provision did not apply to the pending proceedings. 3. Bona Fide Requirement of the Landlord for Reconstruction: The High Court reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, which had concluded that the landlord's claim for reconstruction was not bona fide. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had the jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the findings under Section 15(5), which is broader than the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court observed that there was no legal evidence to suggest that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the landlord had moved the Municipality with a reconstruction plan and obtained its sanction soon after purchasing the property. The Court found no substance in the argument that the landlord acted mala fide, affirming the High Court's conclusion. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the amended provision of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) did not apply retrospectively to the pending proceedings and affirming the bona fide requirement of the landlord for reconstruction. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
