Retrospective validating legislation can render an eviction decree unenforceable and support review by a genuinely aggrieved third party.

A retrospective validating statute was given full effect, preserving leasehold and tenancy rights in the Central Government and displacing the basis of an eviction decree against NTC. On that footing, the decree for possession and NTC's undertaking became unenforceable because the real tenant for eviction purposes was the Government and the suit had not been pursued against it in the proper forum. The Court also recognised that a third party with a real grievance arising from the statutory consequence could maintain review. The Trust was left to pursue appropriate remedies against the Central Government under the applicable rent law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a third party could maintain a review petition as a person aggrieved; (ii) whether, by virtue of the amended textile nationalisation law and the Validation Act, the statutory or protected tenancy rights in the suit property vested in the Central Government so that the decree against NTC and the undertaking given by NTC became unenforceable.

Issue (i): Whether a third party could maintain a review petition as a person aggrieved.

Analysis: The power of review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and the review framework in Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not confined to parties alone. A person who shows a real grievance arising from the judgment may seek review. The Union of India asserted that, on the statutory scheme as retrospectively amended, the decree for possession could not lawfully be enforced against NTC and affected the Government's interest in the suit property. That grievance was sufficient to confer locus.

Conclusion: The review petition was maintainable at the instance of the Union of India.

Issue (ii): Whether, by virtue of the amended textile nationalisation law and the Validation Act, the statutory or protected tenancy rights in the suit property vested in the Central Government so that the decree against NTC and the undertaking given by NTC became unenforceable.

Analysis: The retrospective amendments to Section 3 of the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 and the validating provision in Section 39 of the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014 were treated as having operated from the commencement of the principal Act. On that footing, the leasehold and tenancy rights in the suit property continued to vest in the Central Government, and NTC was not the real tenant for eviction purposes. The suit for possession, having been pursued against NTC alone and in civil court rather than through the rent control forum against the Government, could not be enforced in law after the retrospective statutory change. The undertakings furnished by NTC also lost efficacy because the basis for them stood displaced by the legal fiction created by the validating legislation.

Conclusion: The decree and undertakings were held unenforceable, and the Trust was left to pursue its remedy against the Central Government under the applicable rent legislation.

Final Conclusion: The review succeeded to the extent that the earlier decree could not be enforced against NTC in the changed statutory setting, and the connected contempt and extension requests were not proceeded with. Liberty was reserved to the Trust to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective validating statute must be given full effect according to its legal fiction, and where it preserves tenancy rights in the State and withdraws the basis of an eviction decree, such decree and any undertaking founded on the displaced legal position become unenforceable; a third party genuinely aggrieved by that statutory consequence may seek review.

---