Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. We may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in H. SHIVA RAO AND ANR. v. CECILIA PEREIRA AND ORS. to which His Lordship Sabyasachi Mukharji, as he then was, was a party and His Lordship was also a party to the decisions in Atma Ram Mittal's case and Nand Kishore's case. Shiva Rao's case was under the provisions of the Act. In that case, when the suit was filed before the ordinary Civil Court the premises was not governed by the Act because the premises was situated in the area to which the provisions of the Act were not applicable. The suit for ejectment was decreed. In the second appeal this Court confirmed the decree for ejectment passed by the Courts below. Thereafter, execution was filed for possession. During the pendency of the execution the Municipal limits came to be extended, with the result the area where the premises were situated came within the municipal limits. Consequently, the provisions of the Act became applicable. On this ground the execution was resisted by the tenant who had suffered a decree for ejectment, specifically relying upon Section 21(1) of the Act. The matter came to this Court and this Court negatived the contention of the tenant. However, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court specifically referred to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act and held that the decree could not be executed in the light of the provisions contained in Section 21(1) of the Act. The relevant portion of the Judgment is as follows: