# [1967] 2 S.C.R. 138 - **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 138 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1966-12-02 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1314 of 1966 - **Bench:** R. S. Bachawat, J. M. Shelat - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1967-2-s-c-r-138-3970 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote B Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearan") Act (96 of 1956), s. 19Section requiring landlord to obtain pern1issio,1 of competent authority before ext·cutlng eviction decree 1gainst tenant-Execution application fil .. d a/ler complying with section-Appi,cation consigMd to records pend. in~ ttnant's appeal against decree-S. 19 amended pending appe.d-Fr.sh execution app/icatio11 filed after dismissal of appeal-Whether can be filed without obtaining fresh p!rmission under amended section. C The predecessor in interest of the appellants wa.s a tenant in a slum are.a in Delhi under the respondents. On December 5, 1960 the respondents obtained a decru for eviction against the tenant. On June 19, 1964, the respondents obtained permission for the execution of the decree from the competent authority under s. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (Act of 96 of 1956). On or about July 22, 1964 the r.~pondents apl'lied for execution of the decree. The tenant's objec. D lions to the execult0n application failed and his appeal and thereafter a revision before the High Coun also failed. During the pendency··of the tenant's appeal the application for execution filed on July 22, 1964 was consigned to the record room. For this reason on March 23, 1965 after the decision of the High Court the respondents filed another application for execution of the decree. Meanwhile s. 19 of the Slum Areas Act bad been ame,1ded by Act 43 of 1964. The tenant filed fresh objection• to the execution application dated March 23, 1965 contending that •he E respondents were not entitled to execute the decree without obtainin& 'l fresh permission from the cor.ipetent authority under the new s. 19. The objections were dismissed. On the HiWi Court also deciding against the tenant, the appellant who had meanwhile been brought on record as bb legal representatives, came 10 this court by special leave. HELD : The new section 19 inserted by the Amending Act did not affect a pending execution proceeding either expressly or by necessary F implication and made no change in the Jaw ?pplicable to the proceeding. It r proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area; or B (b) where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in such area, execute such decree or order. (2) Every person desiring to obtain the permission c referred to in sub-section (I) shall make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of such application, the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary inquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinli;s fit, shall by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission (4) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, namcly,- (a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted; (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and .;learance of the slum areas; (c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed. (5) Where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission, it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and furnish a copy thereof to the appellant." During the pendency of the appeal from the order dated August 7, 1964, the application for execution filed on July 22, 1964, had been consigned to the record room. For this reason on March 23, 1965, the respondents filed another application for execution of the decree. The object of this application was to revive the substantive application for execution which was filed on July 22, 1964 and which was still pending. The application made on March 23, 1965, must be regarded as a continuation of the execution proceeding commenced on July n, 1964. The tenant filed fresh ohje<;tions to the execution of the decree. He contended that the respondents were not entitled to execute the decree without obtaining a fresh D E F G H A B c D E F G H VIJENDRA NAT!J v. JAGDISH RAI (Bachawat, !.) 141 . permission from the competent authority under the new s. 19 inserted by the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964. The objections were dismissed by the executing court on April 27, 1965. The order was confirmed by the appellate court on June 9, 1965. A revision petition to the High Court was dismissed on December 15, 1965. During the pendency of the revision petition the tenant died and the appellants were brought on t1'\e record as his legal representatives. The appellants have now filed this appeal by special leave. ·Sub-section (l)(a) of section 19 inserted by the Amending. Act bars the institution of any suit for obtaining a decree for the eviction of any tenant from any building in a slum area after the commencement of the Amending Act without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. This provision has no application to the present case because before the commencement of the Amending Act the respondents had instituted a suit and obtained a decree for the eviction of the tenant. Sub-section !(a) of the newly inserted s. 19 impose_s a bar on the execution of a decree for the eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum area obtained in any suit instituted before the commencemertt of the Amending Act without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. The bar under section 19 operates notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. In granting or refusing the permission under the new section 19, the competent authority is required to take into account certain matters which it was not bound to take into account under the repealed section 19. Now on July 22, 1964 before the commencement of the Amending Act, the respondents had filed the application · for execution of the decree for eviction of the tenant after obtaining the requisite permission of the competent authority under the repealed section 19. Under the law then in force, this application for execution was competent. The question is whether this application is rendered incompetent by the absence of a fresh permission from the competent authority under the newly inserted section 19. Unless the Amending Act affects the i;>ending execution proceeding by express words or by necessary implication, the rights of the parties in the pending proceeding must be decided according to the law in force at the time when the proceeding was commenced and the decree-holder will be entitled to continue the proceeding without obtaining a fresh permission from the competent authority. We think that the new section 19 inserted by the. Amending Act does .not affect a pending_ execution proceeding either expressly or by necessary implication and makes no change in the law applicable to the proceeding. The newly inserted section 19 does not provide for stay of the pending proceeding nor does it otherwise show any clear intention to vary the rights of the parties in the 142 SUPRBMB COUl.T JlBl'OllTS [1967} 2 S.C.R. proceeding. If we are to hold that the pending application for execution is liable to be dismissed in the absence of the previous permission of the competent autho,.;ty under the newly inserted section 19, the decree-holder would be entirely without a remedy in a case where a fresh application for execution would be barred by limitation. The legislature could not have intended such a result. The rights of the parties in the pending application must be decided acC'.lrding to the law as it existed on July 22, 1964, when the application was filed and the execution of the decree commenced. Under the law then in force, the application was competent. The objections filed by the tenant were, therefore rightly dismissed by the tourts below. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs. G.C. Appeal ar.rmissed. B c • I I