Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2005 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 666 - SC - Indian LawsChallenged the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court - Suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sale - Arrears of rent - Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction - denial of relationship of landlord and tenant - Counter-claim under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure - mesne profits - HELD THAT:- In the counter-claim although the Respondents have claimed mesne profits at the rate of ₹ 1500 per month from 10.11.1992 till 9.11.1995, i.e., for a period of only 3 years only and also in future, the Trial Judge did not discuss the evidence which might have been adduced by the parties in that behalf. The Division Bench of the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, on the other hand, examined the question on the premise that the Appellants were in arrears of rent for the period from January, 1977 to June, 1996 and thus, became a defaulter. The contention of the Appellant that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction was repelled by the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore without going into the aforementioned aspect of the matter. We have noticed hereinbefore that the Respondents in the counterclaim did not advance a plea for forfeiture of tenancy nor did they raise any contention that the landlord has issued a notice conveying his intention to determine the lease It is now well-settled that a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction only on the basis that the tenant has denied their title. The matter might have been different if the civil court has otherwise jurisdiction to entertain a suit. The legislature has created new rights and liabilities for both the landlord and tenant in terms of the provisions of the said Act and provided a forum therefore. The jurisdiction of the civil court having been barred except in a situation where the proviso appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 10 would be attracted, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction on a ground envisaged u/s 10(2)(vi) of the A.P. Building (Lease. Rent & Eviction) Control Act. The Civil Court, thus, had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim. The impugned judgment to the aforementioned extent, therefore, cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed in part so far as it relates to the counter-claim made by the Respondents herein However, that part of the judgment whereby and whereunder the Appellant's suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed is upheld.
|