Of jurisdiction to the Judge, Small Causes Court was number companypetent and, therefore, the decree was number executable.
By virtue of the provisions of 1972 Act, the case was transferred to the companyrt of the Judge, Small Causes who tried the case and passed a decree in favour of the respondent on 4.4.1973.
Thereafter, the decree holders filed an execution petition being Execution Case No.
However, the decree remained inexecutable but by virtue of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Amendment Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Amendment Act , section 9 of the 1972 Act was made applicable with retrospective effect to remove the injustice and remedy the mischief which had been caused to the decree holders.
It may be numbered that the tenant did number object to the jurisdiction number did he prefer and appeal or revision against the said judgment dated 4.4.73 and the same became final.
C. Manchanda, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit and Pramod Swarup for the Respondent.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 27.7.1979 of the Allahahad High Court in C.M.W. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
of Uttar Pradesh Ors 1963 1 Supp.
Nil of 1979.
This was because of a statutory amendment which made the decree obtained by him inexecutable and was, therefore, Lying dormant and ineffective.
The respondent landlord filed a suit for ejectment in the year 1971 and obtained a decree for ejectment against the appellant tenant.
However, we were informed by companynsel for the parties that numbersettlement companyld be reached hence we have number to decide the case on merits.
And number to the facts of the case.
4 of 1973.
SCR 912, S. Anbalagan B. Devarajan 1984 2 SCC 91, Kailash Sonkar v. Smt.
The legislature having realised the hardship of such landlords came to their rescue by an amendment in 1976 to the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act 1972 for short, to be referred to as the 1972 Act which was expressly given retrospective operation so as to revive the decrees which had become inexecutable.
His attempts to get the said decree executed were stalled sometimes by objections filed by the tenant appellant and sometimes by amendments made in the law with the result that even after 13 years of litigation the landlord respondent was number able to get possession of the premises.
When the appeal was heard and the arguments were companycluded the respondents had made a good gesture in agreeing to allow the tenant two years time to vacate the premises on giving the usual undertaking and accordingly we adjourned the case to enable the parties to companye to a settlement.
Anil Dev Singh, S.L. Aneja and K.L. Taneja for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J This appeal by special leave against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court unfolds a tell tale plight of an unfortunate litigant who, after obtaining a decree for ejectment, was driven from pillar to post to get the said decree executed.
Maya Devi 1984 2 SCC 91, referred to.
1574 of 1980.
