Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"In this section 'proceeding' does not include an execution proceeding arising out of a decree passed before the coming into operation of this Act."

In the above proviso it is implicit that a "proceeding" includes an execution proceeding of a decree and insofar as the said provision clarifies this position, it serves as an explanation to the Section 28 but it also excepts from the scope of "proceeding" an execution proceeding of a decree passed before the Rent Act came into force and to this extent, it is a proviso to the said Section 28. This view is further reinforced by the provisions of Section 49(2)(iii) which clarifies the scope of the said term "proceedings" by adding thereafter in the bracket the words "including proceedings for execution of decrees ...." This may also explain why Section 31 which inter alia, refers to "proceeding" does not specifically mention the execution of decrees, though it expressly refers to the execution of orders. In our view, therefore, on a fair and plain reading of the word "proceeding" in Section Section 28(1) and the Explanation in the light of the said provisions of Section 49(2) (iii), it includes an execution proceeding of a decree and therefore, in executing an ejectment decree passed under Section Section 28(1) the Small Cause Court exercises jurisdiction under Section Section 28(1).

19. Next is an unreported judgment dated August 27, 1970 of Mr. Justice Bhasme in V.M. Bhaskar v. R.A. Haveliwalla and Mrs. Safiya v. Aminabai in two Special Applications Nos. 2553 of 1967 and 1421 of 1970 (Bom). The same question of law which arises in the present case arose in that case, namely whether an appeal lay against an order passed under Or. XXI, Rule 98 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended on November 1, 1966. The facts in both the special civil applications were the same except that in the second special civil application the order against the petitioner who obstructed the execution f the ejectment decree was passed on June 18, 1970. i.e. after 13th December 1868 when Or. XXI, Rule 98 as applied till then to the proceedings under the Small Cause Courts Act was amended by deleting the Provision for appeal from an order thereunder, Mr. Justice Bhasme held that Section Section 28(1) of the Rent Act refers only to original proceedings which will resolution the passing of final decisions or orders and the proceeding under Or. XXI, Rule 98 was, therefore, outside its scope and, therefore, the Small Cause Court in executing the decree made under the Rent Act does not exercise jurisdiction under Section Section 28(1). He further held that when an obstructionist raises a claim or question arising out of the Rent Act or any of the provisions, the Special Court in determining that point does not exercise jurisdiction under Section 28 not exercise jurisdiction under Section Section 28(1). He however, held that the suit for possession in which the decree was passed fell l under Rule 5(2), and therefore, the procedure in executing the decree laid down by the rules made by the High Court under the Small Cause Courts Act as varied by the rules made by the High Court was to be followed. In our opinion, the learned Judge erred in holding that Section Section 28(1) did not apply to execution proceedings in respect of a decree passed under Section Section 28(1). Apparently, his attention was not drawn to the Explanation to Section 28 or to the proviso to Section 50 which required the proceedings under Chapter VII to be disposed of according to the provisions of the Rent Act and Section 51 which retrospectively declared that reference to suits and proceedings in the Rent Act shall include references to proceedings under Chapter VII.. As already seen general right of appeal is provided by Section 28(1) and 29(1), though the two provisos cut down the scope of such appeals. Proviso (I) Limits the right of appeal from a decree or order in any suit or proceeding in respect of which an appeal lies under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is for this purpose of finding out whether an appeal is provided or not under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that may have been prescribed by the rule making authority that a reference is to be made to the Rent Control Rules. As already seen Rule 5(2) does not take in suits for possession of property and the same will fall within Rule 8.