VIJENDRA NATH & ORS. versus JAGDISH RAI AGGARWAL & ORS.

VIJENDRA NATH & ORS. versus JAGDISH RAI AGGARWAL & ORS.

The new section 19 of the Slum Areas Act inserted by the Amending Act did not apply to execution applications already commenced prior to its enactment. The respondent landlords were entitled to execute the eviction decree on the basis of the permission granted under the old section 19; no fresh permission under the new section was required. The objections raised by the tenant were therefore rightly dismissed.

Parties
Appellants: Vijendra Nath & Ors.; Respondents: Jagdish Rai Aggarwal & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 December 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated December 15, 1965 of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Civil Revision No. 393 D of 1965
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Execution of Decree, Statutory Amendment, Retrospective Operation
Property Law Tenancy Slum Law Eviction Execution of Decree Statutory Amendment Retrospective Operation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijendra Nath & Ors.

Appellants

Jagdish Rai Aggarwal & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated December 15, 1965 of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Civil Revision No. 393 D of 1965

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh permission under amended section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was required for executing an eviction decree in a proceeding commenced before amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The new section 19 of the Slum Areas Act inserted by the Amending Act did not apply to execution applications already commenced prior to its enactment. The respondent landlords were entitled to execute the eviction decree on the basis of the permission granted under the old section 19; no fresh permission under the new section was required. The objections raised by the tenant were therefore rightly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to respondents.