Retrospective rent control proviso made eviction decree a nullity and unenforceable in execution.

A retrospectively inserted proviso in section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was treated as part of the provision from the date of enactment, bringing the tenancy within the Act. On that reading, section 50 barred the civil court from entertaining the eviction suit, so the decree was made without inherent jurisdiction and was a nullity. A void decree may be questioned even in execution, and the executing court may refuse to enforce it. The retrospective wording also displaced any reliance on finality of the earlier decree, so the execution objection was rightly upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso inserted retrospectively in section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applied to the tenancy in question so as to render the civil court decree for eviction a nullity and inexecutable in execution.

Analysis: The premises belonged to Government, but were lawfully let by the appellant to the respondent. By reason of the retrospective introduction of the proviso, the legal fiction required the proviso to be treated as part of section 3 from the date of enactment of the Act. Once so read, the tenancy fell within the Act, the civil court was barred by section 50 from entertaining the suit, and the decree for eviction was one passed without inherent jurisdiction. A decree which is a nullity may be challenged even in execution, and the executing court is entitled to refuse to execute it. The retrospective language of the proviso also displaced any argument based on finality of the earlier decree.

Conclusion: The decree for eviction was a nullity and could not be executed; the objection in execution was rightly upheld. The appeal failed.

---