“16. In RANGA RAO’s case the landlord/ appellant had filed a suit for possession which ended in a compromise decree. Subsequently, the notification exempting certain categories of buildings from the purview of C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 issued under clause 30 of the said order came to be struck down on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. When the decree wa sought to be executed, the tenant albeit the compromise raised an objection that the decree became unexecutable since the civil court had lost jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction in view of the decision. That objection, although overruled by the lower Courts, was upheld by the High Court. Allowing the landlord’s appeal, the Supreme Court held – When the compromise memo fruitioned into a decree on 3.1.1985, the Civil Court had every jurisdiction to pass such a decree. It is true the notification issued under clause 30 of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,1949 came to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This was on 19.6.1985. The decision rendered thereunder cannot have any effect of rendering the decree passed on 3.1.1985 a nullity which decree has become final. No judgment of any court can have any retrospective operation because that is the plenary power of Parliament (Legislature as well). The Courts do not have such power. If that be so, the High Court had clearly gone wrong in holding that the decree on the date of execution is a nullity. This view though in conflict with the view expressed in SHIVA RAO’s case
