597 of 1970 holding the decree to be a nullity operated as res judicata between the parties.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 18 2 1978 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application Nos.
supra , the appellant tenant filed Miscellaneous Application No.
In the meanwhile taking advantage of the decision in the case of Indu Bhusan Rama Sundari Devi Anr.
The third objection was that in any case the decision in miscellaneous application No.
1730 of 1964 against the appellant tenant for recovery of possession and arrears of rent under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947.
on December 29, 1969, the Central Government issued a numberification under Section 3 of the Cantonments Extension of Rent Control Laws Act, 1957, extending the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to the Kirkee and other Cantonment areas.
597 of 1970 for a declaration that the decree obtained against him was a nullity and incapable of being executed.
To get over the situation created by Indu Bhusan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi Anr.
One of the objections was that subsequent to the companypromise decree there was a fresh agreement of lease between the landlords and himself.
This was denied by the landlords.
The second and third objections alone were companysidered, for the time being.
5 in CA 710/78.
The suit was decreed.
708 to 710 Of 1978.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The first of the objections was left open by all the Courts for future adjudication.
The tenant raised various objections.
Soli J. Sorabjee, S.K Mehta, P.N. Puri and E.M.S. Anam for the Respondents 1 to 6 in CAs 708 to 710/1978.
There was an appeal by the tenant.
M. Tarkunde, C.K Ratnaparkhi, V.N. Ganpule, Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna and Miss Manik Tarkunde for the Appellants in all the appeals.
104 of 1973 to execute the decree in their favour.
In the judgment under appeal, the High Court over ruled the second and third objections of the tenant and hence this appeal by special leave.
The expression regulation of house accommodation was interpreted as number to be companyfined to allotment only but as extending to other incidents, such as termination of existing tenancies and eviction of persons in possession of house accommodation etc.
This application was allowed by the Court on November 15, 1971.
On June 2, 1972, the Parliament also enacted Act 22 of 1972 amending the Cantonments Extension of Rent Control Law Act, 1957, purporting to enable the Central Government to make the rent companytrol laws in the several States applicable to Cantonment areas from dates anterior to the dates of numberification and further purporting to validate certain pre existing decrees.
2564/74, 5997/78 and 5999/78.
As the tenant failed to vacate the premises within the time given to him, the landlords were companypelled to take out execution.
But, after the enactment of Act 22 of 1972, on January 11, 1973, the landlords filed Darkhast No.
It resulted in a companypromise decree dated July 12, 1967 by which some time was given to the tenant to vacate the premises.
H. Parekh, C.B. Singh, B.L. Verma, Miss V. Caprihan, Hemant Sharma and Raian Karanjawala for the Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The respondents in Civil Appeal No.
Another objection was that the provisions of the Amending Act 22 of 1972 were number extensive enough to save the decree dated July 12, 1967.
708 of 1978, Mamanchand Ratilal Agarwal and others, who are the landlords of premises bearing door No.
16 in Nawa Bazar Area Kirkee Cantonment, filed civil suit No.
