MOTI RAM versus SURAJ BHAN & OTHERS.

MOTI RAM versus SURAJ BHAN & OTHERS.

The revision application before the High Court was competent and could be entertained as finality of the appellate order can only be claimed after it is made and the amendment had come into force prior to such order. The amendment to s.13(3)(a)(iii) affecting landlords' substantive rights operates prospectively and does not apply to pending proceedings, absent express or implied retrospective effect. The High Court had jurisdiction under amended s.15(5) to examine the legality and propriety of the order and correctly found landlord's requirement was bona fide.

Parties
Appellant: Moti Ram; Respondent: Suraj Bhan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 February 1960
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment in Civil Revision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Retrospective Operation of Amendments, Revisional Jurisdiction, Rights of Landlords and Tenants, Eviction for Reconstruction, Finality of Appellate Orders
Rent Control Property Law Retrospective Operation of Amendments Revisional Jurisdiction Rights of Landlords and Tenants Eviction for Reconstruction Finality of Appellate Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moti Ram

Appellant

Suraj Bhan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment in Civil Revision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended provisions of s.13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 apply retrospectively to pending proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the revision application before the High Court was competent under s.15 as amended
  3. 3 Whether the High Court rightly reversed findings of the Rent Controller and appellate authority on landlord's bona fide requirement

Ratio Decidendi

The revision application before the High Court was competent and could be entertained as finality of the appellate order can only be claimed after it is made and the amendment had come into force prior to such order. The amendment to s.13(3)(a)(iii) affecting landlords' substantive rights operates prospectively and does not apply to pending proceedings, absent express or implied retrospective effect. The High Court had jurisdiction under amended s.15(5) to examine the legality and propriety of the order and correctly found landlord's requirement was bona fide.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Decree of eviction upheld as per High Court order