The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 has an overriding effect to the provisions of other laws and is a complete code determining the rights of a tenant/landlord to the exclusion of other laws. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred, and the respondents can only be evicted under the Act 1973.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs assailing the judgment dated 8th July, 2009, upholding the judgment and decree of the Court of appeal dated 28th March, 2006 holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for possession in reference to the subject property and the appropriate remedy available with the appellants is to initiate proceedings for eviction of the suit property under the provisions of the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as “Act 1973”).

2. The brief facts of the case manifest from the record are that the appellants filed a suit on the averment that their predecessor in interest Sh. Vinod Kumar was owner of the subject plot of land admeasuring 10,000 sq. feet in municipal limits, Kaithal bearing Municipal No.657/10. Undisputedly, the Act 1973 applies to the suit property in question.

3. The subject property was given on lease by late Vinod Kumar to M/s Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distributing Company Ltd. for a fixed period of 20 years at the rate of Rs.35/per month vide lease dated 4th June, 1958 with effect from 1st April, 1958. The lease period initially was for 20 years and clause 10 of the lease contemplated renewal of the lease once for another 20 years. The lease period commenced from 1st April, 1958 for a period of 20 years expired on 1st April, 1978 and in terms of clause 10 of the lease deed, one extension was permissible and that renewal option for another period of 20 years was availed and that lease period also expired on 1st April, 1998.

4. At this stage, the appellants served a legal notice on the respondents dated 30th January, 1998 in which although Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has not been specifically mentioned, but in pith and substance the notice was served for terminating tenancy of the respondents and later filed a civil suit for possession of the subject land on 7th August, 1998.

5. The preliminary objection was raised by the respondents regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit and the defence throughout was that the Act 1973 is applicable on the subject property and they can be evicted only under the provisions of the Act 1973. It is not disputed that the subject land admittedly falls within the area administered by Municipal Committee, Kaithal and the rented land is situated within the urban area and covered under the provisions of the Act 1973.

6. That before expiry of the period of lease of 20 years, the Central Government enacted Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called as “Act 1976”), pursuant to which the leasehold rights were taken over by the respondents/defendants. The option of renewal of lease for another period of 20 years was availed by the respondents in terms of clause 10 of the lease deed dated 4th June, 1958. The case of the appellants was that after lease expired on 1st April, 1998, the possession of the respondents on the suit property became unauthorised and without consent of the appellants and since the respondents failed to vacate the suit property despite a legal notice dated 30th January, 1998 being served, the appellants since required the suit property for their personal bonafide necessity for expanding their business, although had earlier filed an application under the Act 1973, as alleged on the wrong premise. It was pleaded that at least the provisions of the Act 1973 do not apply to the suit property as it is governed by the special Act enacted by the Central Government being Act 1976. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the appellants that respondent no.1 had sublet the suit property to respondent no.2 without consent of the appellants and hence the appellants are entitled to possession of the suit property and also claimed mesne profits during pendency of the suit at the market rate, in addition to three years rent prior to lapse of the renewal period and prayed for