Rent control protections upheld as valid retrospective restrictions, with statutory relief extended to Small Cause Court orders.

A rent control amendment protecting tenants during an acute housing shortage was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, and its retrospective operation in pending proceedings was sustained. The Court also construed "decree for recovery of possession" broadly to include an order of the Presidency Small Cause Court, avoiding an irrational distinction between similarly placed tenants. Relief remained available even where the order followed a confession of judgment, because the underlying basis was still default in rent payment rather than a true voluntary settlement. The result was that the amendment was valid, the statutory protection applied to Small Cause Court orders, and the tenants' applications succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended rent control provisions, including retrospective application to pending proceedings, were ultra vires as imposing unreasonable restrictions on the landlord's right to hold property; (ii) whether the expression "decree for recovery of possession" in Section 18(1) included an order made by the Presidency Small Cause Court; (iii) whether relief under Section 18(1) was unavailable because the order in one case was made on confession.

Issue (i): Whether the amended rent control provisions, including retrospective application to pending proceedings, were ultra vires as imposing unreasonable restrictions on the landlord's right to hold property.

Analysis: The protection of tenants was upheld as a response to an acute housing shortage caused by war and partition conditions in West Bengal. The restrictions were treated as directed to the public interest and to the maintenance of law and order. The retrospective amendment was also sustained because it was intended to cure the unintended effect of earlier judicial decisions and to protect a large class of tenants in pending matters. The Court further held that a restriction on the right to hold property may arise from interference with enjoyment of property and is not confined to total deprivation.

Conclusion: The amended provisions were held to be intra vires and not unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether the expression "decree for recovery of possession" in Section 18(1) included an order made by the Presidency Small Cause Court.

Analysis: The Court read the provision in the context of the statute as a whole, including the protection granted against both decrees and orders under the earlier section and the marginal note indicating relief against decrees and orders. It was held that the word "decree" was used in a broader sense so as to cover Small Cause Court orders, and that a narrow construction would produce an irrational distinction between similarly situated tenants.

Conclusion: The expression was held to include an order of the Presidency Small Cause Court, and the provision applied to such orders.

Issue (iii): Whether relief under Section 18(1) was unavailable because the order in one case was made on confession.

Analysis: The order was found not to be a true consent order based on a voluntary settlement, but an order made after the tenant's request for adjournment was refused and the advocate confessed judgment. The Court held that the order still rested on default in payment of rent and therefore fell within the statutory language.

Conclusion: Relief was held to be available notwithstanding the confession of judgment.

Final Conclusion: The rent control amendment was sustained, the statutory relief was held applicable to the Small Cause Court orders, and the tenants' applications were upheld, leaving the landlords' revisions without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A rent control amendment enacted to meet an acute housing crisis and to protect tenants in pending proceedings may validly operate retrospectively as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, and the word "decree" in such a relief provision may be construed broadly to include Small Cause Court orders where that construction is necessary to effectuate the statute's protective purpose.

---