TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct will became applicable. A perusal of the said provisions goes to show that the tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Considering the said provisions, this Court in a judgment reported as Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia [ 1988 (8) TMI 426 - SUPREME COURT] held that if the suit has been filed within the exemption period of ten years, the decree could be executed. Under the Punjab Rent Act, the provision is explicit that no decree for eviction passed before or after the commencement of the Act can be executed whereas under the Haryana Rent Act, a tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act - Section 18 does not talk about the validity of any decree of the civil court but only restricts the jurisdiction of the civil court from the date the Act became applicable. The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed. After the applicability of the Act to the area in question, the landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only before the Rent Tribunal but not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second appeal before the High Court, the appellants relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as K. Ramnarayan Khandelwal v. Shri Pukhraj Banthiya 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4178 wherein it has been held that the decree in civil suit could not be passed after the applicability of the Act to the area in question. The High Court in the impugned judgment found that such judgment has been stayed by this Court in Special Leave Petition, therefore, the judgment is not binding. In view of the said fact, the High Court held that the decree in civil suit could be passed as the same view was adopted by another co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in another case Mohd. Rafiq v. Hanuman Sahai Ors. (SBCWP No. 16681 of 2019) and consequently, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Special Leave Petition arising out of the Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in K. Ramnarayan Khandelwal and other similar cases are pending final disposal before this Court and that, therefore, the present appeals should also be heard along with the said matters. But we do not think so. Though, ideally all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onnected therewith and ancillary thereto, filed under the provisions of this Act: Provided that Rent Tribunal shall, in deciding such petitions to which provisions contained in Chapters II and III of this Act do not apply, have due regard to the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 (Act 4 of 1882), the Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872), or any other substantive law applicable to such matter in the same manner in which such law would have been applied had the dispute been brought before a civil court by way of suit xx xx xx 32. Repeal and Savings.- The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act, 1950 (Act 17 of 1950) shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under subsection (3) of Section 11 of this Act. (2) The repeal under sub-section (1) shall not affect- (a) anything duly done or suffered under the enactment so repealed; or (b) any right, title, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the enactment so repealed; or (c) any fine, penalty or punishment incurred or suffered uder the provision of the enactment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxx (2) [Except as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 12, subsection (1-A) of Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24-A, 24-B, 24-C or sub-section (3) of Section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed]: 20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds. -(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall bar a suit for the eviction of a tenant on the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time where the tenancy for a fixed term was entered into by or in pursuance of a compromise or adjustment arrived at with reference to a suit, appeal, revision or execution proceeding, which is either recorded in court or otherwise reduced to writing and signed by the tenant. 11. In Om Prakash Gupta v. DIG Vijendrapal Gupta (1982) 2 SCC 61 , a question arose whether the Rent Act would be applicable to a building wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. v. Samundri Devi (1987) 4 SCC 382 wherein it was held as under: 14. . This is put in Chapter IV with the heading Regulation and Eviction and the section starts with title which is printed in bold Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except, on specified grounds and again in the wording of the section itself it provides: No suit shall be instituted for eviction . This clearly indicates that the restriction put under Section 20 is to the institution of the suit itself and therefore it is clear that if the provisions of this Act applies then no suit for eviction can be instituted except on the grounds specified in the sub-sections of this section. Keeping in view the language of this section if we examine the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 2 it will be clear that for a newly constructed building the provisions of this Act will not apply for 10 years and therefore so far as the restriction under Section 20 is concerned they will not apply and therefore it is clear that within 10 years as provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 2 restriction on the institution of suit as provided for in Section 20 sub-section (1) quoted above will not be applicable an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 13 of the Punjab Rent Act which bars the execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of the Punjab Rent Act which reads thus: 13. Eviction of tenants. - (1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this Section, [or in pursuance of an order made under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, as subsequently amended]. 15. The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 For short, the Haryana Rent Act provides that a tenant in possession of a building or a rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with the provisions of this section. The relevant provisions of the said Act read thus: 1. xx xx xx (3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of ten years. Once rights crystallise the adjudication must be in accordance with law. 17. In a three-judge Bench judgment reported as Shri Kishan Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 710 , the judgment of this Court in Vineet Kumar was specifically overruled. This Court held as under: 20. Thus it is seen that this Court has been consistently taking the view that a suit instituted during the period of exemption could be continued and a decree passed therein could be executed even though the period of exemption came to an end during the pendency of the suit. The only discordant note was struck in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera [(1984) 3 SCC 352]. We have noticed that several decisions subsequent thereto have held that Vineet Kumar [(1984) 3 SCC 352] is not good law. We have already construed the relevant provisions of the Act and pointed out that there is nothing in the Act which prevents the civil court from continuing the suit and passing a decree which could be executed. 18. Thus, under the Punjab Rent Act, the provision is explicit that no decree for eviction passed before or after the commencement of the Act can be executed whereas under the Haryan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the suit premises are situated, is notified to be a municipality. The Order is not retrospective in operation. It does not affect the validity of the proceedings initiated before the date on which the Order became applicable. Clause 13 of the Order does not restrain the court from exercising its power to pass a decree of eviction. All that clause 13 provides is to impose a restriction on the right of the landlord to initiate the proceedings for eviction. Inasmuch as the proceedings for eviction were already initiated and the Order is not retrospective in operation, it does not affect the validity of the previously instituted proceedings nor does it take away the power of the court to pass a decree of eviction in the pending suit. 20. Out of the various judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, the judgment relied upon in Rajender Bansal Ors. v. Bhuru (Dead) through Legal Representatives Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 202 was dealing with Haryana Rent Act. The landlords were the appellants who had filed suit for eviction of the respondents, their tenants. The suit was filed in the civil court. The premises in question were outside the ambit of rent legislation on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soor Khan [Mansoor Khan v. Motiram Harebhan Kharat, (2002) 5 SCC 462] , etc. as under the scheme of the Rent Act, no protection to the ex-tenants is provided and no provision is made excluding the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of pending cases, expressly or impliedly. On the other hand, in the facts of the present case, it needs to be highlighted again that the respondents had not only sublet the premises but had not paid rent for a period of 14 years. His defence was struck off by the civil court and ultimately the suit was even decreed. It is only during the pendency of the appeal that the notification was issued covering the area where the suit premises are situate under the Rent Act. It will be travesty of justice if the appellant landlords are deprived of the fruits of the said decree. 24. We are, thus, unable to accept the view taken by the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the first appellate court as well as the High Court is set aside. As the only contention which was taken by the respondents before the first appellate court, challenging the decree of the trial court, was that the civil court ceased to have jurisdiction, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10.1989 barred the passing of a decree of eviction in a suit for proceedings filed and pending. The relevant clause reads as under: 13-A- no decree for eviction shall be passed in a suit or proceeding filed and pending against the tenant in any court or before any authority unless the landlord produces a written permission of the Controller as required by sub-clause (1) of clause 13 25. The dispute in the said case was in respect of an open plot. As per the landlord, the tenancy was deemed to have expired on 10.4.1986 in view of Section 106 of the TP Act before Section 13-A of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 came into force. The High Court held that no appeal was pending against the tenant when Section 13-A was introduced. This Court remanded the matter back to the High Court as the High Court has not examined the question as to whether the amendment was retrospective or prospective. This Court held as under: 8. The High Court further concluded that the amendments have no retrospective effect. The provision came into force when the appeal was pending. Therefore, though the provision is prospective in force, has retroactive effect . Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question, Section 18 does not talk about the validity of any decree of the civil court but only restricts the jurisdiction of the civil court from the date the Act became applicable. The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed. After the applicability of the Act to the area in question, the landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only before the Rent Tribunal but not before the civil court. However, a suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question. The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit. 29. Still further, one of the principles is that the rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences i.e., on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day when he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
