TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78. The suit was filed on the basis that the respondent was in arrears of rent from lst December, 1982 to 3lst May, 1982 and the tenancy of the respondent had been terminated by giving him notice. The suit was filed for recovery of possession on the termination or expiry of the period of tenancy. It was filed because of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Act was passed with the object to control the increase of rent of certain buildings and rented land situated within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom. For our present purpose, it would suffice if we bear in mind two relevant provisions. Section 1(3) of the Act provides as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the suit had not been decreed within the period of ten years, the building in question came within the operation of the Act and as such the Rent Act was applicable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. In the premises, the learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the suit pending before the Sub-Judge. Aggrieved thereby the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court. More or less identical provisions of the U. P. Act had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Vineet Kumar v.Manal Sain Wadhera, [l984] 3 S.C.C. 352. The only point that was urged before this Court in that decision was whether the premises which was not ten years old on the date of the suit and was exempted from the operation of the new Rent Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... building, it was covered by the Act, that the plaint having not been amended so as to bring the suit under the Act, it was barred by section 20 and that term was no default in payment of rent. As mentioned hereinbefore, during the pendency of the litigation the exemption granted under section 2 [2] expired. The question was whether the premises which was not ten years old on the date of the suit and was exempted from the operation of the Rent Act, would be governed by it if ten years expired during , the pendency of the litigation. Allowing the appeal, this Court held that the appellant must get benefits of the Act which became applicable to the premises in question during the pendency of the litigation. That would not affect the cause o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is the continuation of the suit), then the tenant would be entitled to the benefits of the Act. This Court further held that within 10 years as provided for in section 2(2) restriction on the institution of suit as provided for in section 20 (1) will not be applicable. It was held that during the pendency of the litigation even if 10 years expired the restriction under section 20 will not be attracted as the suit had been instituted within 10 years. It is well-settled that the rights of the parties will have to be determined on the basis of the rights available to them on the date of the suit. This Court pointed out that the attention of the Court had not been drawn to the decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig. Vijendrapal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much so, a landlord who had let out his new building could recover possession with-out impediment if he instituted such proceedings within ten years of completion ? It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of the fault of the Court or delay in the procedure. Broom has stated the maxim actus curiam neminem gravabit -an act of Court shall prejudice no, man. Therefore, having regard to the time normally consumed for adjudication, the 10 years exemption or holiday from the application of the Rent Act would become illusory, if the suit has to be filed within that time and be disposed of finally. It is common knowledge that unless a suit is instituted soon after the date of letting it would never be disposed of within 10 years and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed and the true meaning of what words as was said by Lord Reid in Black-Clawson International Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg A G, [1975] Appeal Cases 591 at 613. We are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the language we must find the reason and the spirit of the law. If the immunity from the operation of the Rent Act is made and depended upon the ultimate disposal of the case within the period of exemption of 10 years which is in reality ability, then there would be empty reasons. In our opinion,bearing in mind the well-settled principle that the rights of the parties crystallise on the date of the institution of the suit as enunciated by this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, (supra), the meaningful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
