JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH, J.:---This Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question about the interpretation of the provisions of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act, 1957, as amended by the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act, 1972. The facts which are not in dispute may be stated thus : The petitioner has been a tenant of two rooms on the ground floor in House No. 51, situate within the Kirkee Cantonment Board, District Poona. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the landlords of the suit premises filed Suit No. 3477 of 1964 against the petitioner in the Court of the Small Causes at Poona for possession of the suit premises, under the Bombay Rent Act. This suit was transferred on administrative grounds to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, and it was renumbered as R.C.S. No. 834 of 1965. On September 3, 1967, the respondents suit for possession of the suit premises came to be decreed by the trial Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal, viz. Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1967, in the District Court, Poona, which was dismissed on September 30, 1968. This order in appeal was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in Special Civil Application No. 2229 of 1968. On November 15, 1971, the Special Civil Application was dismissed with the result that the decree for possession passed by the trial Court was confirmed. 2. During the pendency of the above litigation, by a judgment pronounced on April 29, 1969 in the case of (Indu Bhusan v. Rama Sundari)1, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 228, the Supreme Court held that the Rent Act was not applicable to the Cantonment areas belonging to the Central Government. In the case, the Supreme Court took the view that the State Government had no power to extend the Rent Act to the cantonment area belonging to the Central Government. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Indu Bhusans case, the petitioner filed Misc. In the case, the Supreme Court took the view that the State Government had no power to extend the Rent Act to the cantonment area belonging to the Central Government. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Indu Bhusans case, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 700 of 1971 in the trial Court contending that the decree for possession passed in Registrar Civil Suit No. 834 of 1965 by the trial Court on September 3, 1967 was a nullity as the Court which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to decide the matter under the Bombay Rent Act. 3. It appears that after the decision of the Supreme Court, the Central Government issued a Notification dated December 27, 1969, which was published in the Extra Ordinary Government Gazette Part II dated December 29, 1969, under the provisions of section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, extending the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act to various cantonments including the Kirkee Cantonment. According to the petitioner, this Notification was not retrospective and hence the decree for possession which was passed prior to the said Notification continued to remain a nullity even after the Notification issued by the Central Government on December 27, 1969. 4. The petitioners application was opposed by the respondents who contended inter alia that in view of the Notification, the trial Court had jurisdiction to pass the decree for possession under the Bombay Rent Act, and the decree being a valid one was binding on the petitioner. The respondents raised various other contentions about the maintainability of the application of the petitioner. However, it is not necessary to refer to such other contentions as no arguments are advanced before me in that behalf. This application came to be heard by the IVth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, who by his order dated December 21, 1974, declared that the decree passed against the petitioner was without jurisdiction. 5. This order of the trial Court was challenged by the respondents decree holder in appeal in the District Court which was heard by the learned Extra Joint Judge, Poona. On a consideration of the provisions of the Act of 1957, as amended by the Amending Act of 1972, the learned Judge held that the decree was not a nullity or without jurisdiction. On a consideration of the provisions of the Act of 1957, as amended by the Amending Act of 1972, the learned Judge held that the decree was not a nullity or without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, he allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order of the trial Court declaring the decree passed against the petitioner as without jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has preferred this Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. The short question which arises on the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is whether a decree passed under the Rent Act is rendered valid and with jurisdiction without the Central Government extending the provisions of the Act retrospectively from a date before the date of the passing of the decree. The decree for possession in the present case is dated September 3, 1967, and the Notification extending the provisions of the Rent Act has been issued by the Central Government thereafter on December 27, 1969, and this Notification is not given a retrospective effect. It is, therefore, contended that on a true construction of sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act, 1972, the decree passed by the trial Court in the present case would still continue to be without jurisdiction, and, therefore, inexecutable. 7. As stated earlier, the original Act of 1957 has been amended by the Amendment Act of 1972. Section 3 of the Act of 1957 prior to the amendment of 1972, in so far as is material, runs thus: "The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any cantonment with such restrictions and notifications as it thinks fit, any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is in force on the date of the notification in the State in which the cantonment is situated: ........... By the Amendment Act of 1972, the words "on the date of the notification" as they appear in the original section 3 are deleted, and it has been stated that this deletion will have an effect since the coming into operation of the Act of 1957. By the Amendment Act of 1972, the words "on the date of the notification" as they appear in the original section 3 are deleted, and it has been stated that this deletion will have an effect since the coming into operation of the Act of 1957. Besides this deletion of words mentioned above by the Amending Act of 1972, sub-section (2) has been introduced in the original section 3, and it provides that--- The extension of any enactment under sub-section (1) may be made from such earlier or future date as the Central Government may think fit : Provided that no such extension shall be made from a date earlier than--- (a) the commencement of such enactment, or (b) the establishment of the cantonment, or (c) the commencement of this Act, whichever is later..........". 8. It may be recalled at this stage that under the Amendment Act, 1972, sub-section (2) has been added to original section 1, according to which the Act of 1957 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 26th day of January, 1950. Thus, in view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3 (as introduced by the Amendment), the power conferred on the Central Government to extend the provisions of the Rent Laws retrospectively is circumscribed by the conditions laid down in the proviso. In short, such extension could be made from a date on or after the commencement of the Rent Laws in question or the establishment of the Cantonment itself, or the commencement of this Act, which would mean the 26th day of January, 1950, whichever is later. In the present case, it is common ground that the Kirkee Cantonment has been established long prior to January 26, 1950, which is the date of the commencement of the Act. Similarly, the Bombay Rent Act is also on the statute book prior to January 26, 1950. It would thus appear that it would be open to the Central Government to extend the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act from a date which may be January 26, 1950, or, any date thereafter, and not earlier. In the present case, the Notification applying the provisions of the Rent Act to the Kirkee Cantonment is dated December 27, 1969. By this Notification, it is provided that Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, shall come into force at once. In the present case, the Notification applying the provisions of the Rent Act to the Kirkee Cantonment is dated December 27, 1969. By this Notification, it is provided that Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, shall come into force at once. It would, therefore, appear that as per this Notification, the provisions of the Rent Act would be made applicable to the Kirkee Cantonment area with effect from December 29, 1969. It was on the basis of this Notification which does not provide for retrospective application of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and also because that there is no fresh Notification issued by the Central Government after the introduction of the Amendment Act, 1972, that the Counsel for the petitioner argued that a decree passed prior to the issuance of the Notification is not saved and must be treated as nullity as before. In order to appreciate this contention, however, it would be necessary to refer to the sub-clause (4) which was added to the original sub-section (2) of section 3 by the Amendment Act of 1972. In order to appreciate this contention, however, it would be necessary to refer to the sub-clause (4) which was added to the original sub-section (2) of section 3 by the Amendment Act of 1972. It provides- "(4) Where, before the extension to a cantonment of any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation therein (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act).--- (i) any decree or order for the regulation of, or for eviction from, any house accommodation in that cantonment, or (ii) any order in the proceedings for the execution of sub decree or order, or (iii) any order relating to the control of rent or other incident of such house accommodation, was made by any Court, Tribunal or other authority in accordance with any law for the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation for the time being in force in the State in which such cantonment is situated, such decree or order shall, on and from the date on which the Rent Control Act is extended to that cantonment, be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provisions of the Rent Control Act, as extended to that cantonment, as if the said Rent Control Act, as so extended, were in force in that cantonment, on the date on which such decree or order was made." (emphasis supplied) On a plain reading of sub-section (4), it would appear that all decrees or orders for eviction which would initially be without jurisdiction would be validated on and from the date on which the Rent Control Act is extended to that Cantonment. It appears clear that the condition for the applicability of sub-section (4) so as to validate the decrees passed by the Rent Court is that the provisions of the Rent Act must be extended to the cantonment and the validation can have effect only from the date on which the extension is made. There is nothing in the provisions of sub-section (4) which would indicate an intention on the part of the Legislature that only those decrees or orders of eviction passed after the date of extension of the Rent Act to the cantonment would be rendered valid and enforceable. In my view, what is necessary for validation of the decree is merely the extension of the provisions of the Rent Act. In my view, what is necessary for validation of the decree is merely the extension of the provisions of the Rent Act. So long as the Central Government does not issue the Notification, the decree would be a nullity and unenforceable. What is material for the applicability of sub-section (4) is the extension of the provisions of the Rent Act. It matters little whether such extension is made retrospectively from an earlier date. Relying on the expression contained in sub-section (4) read with sub-section (2) of section 3, as well as sub-section (3) of section 3, it was urged by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Legislature gave power to the Central Government to extend the provisions of the Rent Act from a particular date and it is reasonable to hold that in the absence of retrospective application by a notification, the validation of the decrees or orders for eviction must relate to decrees passed from a date from which the extension of the enactment is made by the notification. I see no substance in this contention. Sub-section (4) must be read independently of the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3). The object of sub-section (4) as is clear from the plain words used by the Legislature is to validate decrees or orders for eviction immediately from the date on which the Rent Control Act is extended to the particular cantonment; and what is material is the extension of the provisions of the Rent Act and not the date from which the provisions of the Rent Control Act are made applicable to that cantonment. 9. In this connection, it would be worthwhile to refer to the provisions of sub-section (3) as added to section 3 by the Amendment Act 1972. 9. In this connection, it would be worthwhile to refer to the provisions of sub-section (3) as added to section 3 by the Amendment Act 1972. Sub-section (3) provides--- "Where any enactment in force in any State relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation is extended to a cantonment from a date earlier than the date on which such extension is made (hereafter referred to as the "earlier date"), such enactment as in force on such earlier date, shall apply to such cantonment, and, where any such enactment has been amended at any time after the earlier date but before the commencement of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act, 1972, such enactment, as amended, shall apply to the cantonment on and from the date on which the enactment by which such amendment was came into force." Reading sub-sections (2) and (3) together, it would appear that a power has been conferred on the Central Government to extend the provisions of the Rent Control Act to the Cantonments even retrospectively from a particular date. The effect of such a notification would be that the provisions of the Rent Act would be applicable to the premises in the cantonment area from that particular date and the rights and relations between the landlord and tenant of such premises would be governed by the Rent Control Act in force with effect from the date mentioned in the notification. Sub-sections (2) and (3) do not deal with the decrees or orders passed prior to the extension of the Rent Control Act to the cantonment. A distinction must necessarily be made between the provisions of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4). The subject matter of sub-section (4) is the validation of the decrees or orders for eviction or such other proceedings mentioned in sub-section (4), while the subject matter of sub-section (3) is the application of the Rent Control Act governing the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the premises with effect from a particular date. No assistance, therefore, can be taken by the petitioner of the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of sub-section (4). The scope and ambit of the provisions of sub-section (4) is entirely different from the one contained in sub-section (3). No assistance, therefore, can be taken by the petitioner of the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of sub-section (4). The scope and ambit of the provisions of sub-section (4) is entirely different from the one contained in sub-section (3). Sub-section (4) obviously applies to cases of concluded decrees or orders or proceedings arising therefrom while sub-section (3) deals with the mutual relationship of the landlord and tenant as controlled by the provisions of the particular Rent Control Act. The effect of sub-section (3) is that the rights and obligations of the parties as well as disputes arising therefrom would be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act with effect from the date it has been brought into force by a notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act. 10. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of a retrospective extension of the Bombay Rent Act to a date prior to the passing of the decree, it would still continue to be a nullity or without jurisdiction. In view of the notification dated December 27, 1969, extending the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act to the premises in the Kirkee Cantonment and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 3, the decree passed against the petitioner is rendered valid and with jurisdiction and is therefore executable. 11. In the result, the petition fails and the rule is discharged. The petitioner to pay the costs. -----