Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : IYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO
Vallabhaneni Sarala Devi - Appellant
Versus
Rachapudi Subba Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 10-26-90
RENT CONTROL - EXECUTION OF DECREE - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - DECREE PASSED BEFORE AMENDMENT - VALIDITY - EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT - AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT (15 OF 1960), SEC. 32(B).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the demised premises and for recovery of future profits. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an appeal, which was dismissed for default. The defendant then filed a civil appeal in the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal and held that Sec. 32(b) of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960) was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff filed execution petitions to enforce the decree passed in the suit. The defendant filed objections, contending that the decree was not executable in view of the Supreme Court judgment. The trial court dismissed the execution petitions, holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass the decree, as on the date of filing of the suit, Sec. 32(b) of the Act was in force. The court further held that the subsequent amendment of the Act, which struck down Sec. 32(b), did not affect the validity of the decree passed by the civil court. Therefore, the decree was executable.
Issues: Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass the decree, considering that Sec. 32(b) of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960) was struck down by the Supreme Court as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: * The rights of the parties crystallize on the date of the institution of the suit. * A decree passed by a court having jurisdiction is valid and executable, even if the law under which the decree was passed is subsequently amended or struck down. * The subsequent amendment of the Act, which struck down Sec. 32(b), did not affect the validity of the decree passed by the civil court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions and held that the decree passed by the civil court was executable.
( 1 ) THESE revision petitions are directed against the common order dated december 31, 1985 of the I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam by which E. P. Nos. 37 to 39 of 1984 on his file were dismissed and allowed E. A. Nos. 392 to 394 of 1984. Aggrieved by the dismissal of E. P. Nos. 37 to 39 of 1984, the petitioner filed C. R. Ps. 640 to 642 of 1986 respectively and similarly aggrieved by allowing E. As. 392, 393, and 394 of 1984 the petitioner filed C. R. P. Nos. 2497, 2498 and 2499 of 1987 respectively. CRP No. 641/86 was dismissed by this Court as per orders dated 11-6-87. Since all these petitions are directed against a common order dated 31-12-1985 of the learned I Additional District Judge at Machilipatam, all these matters are heard together and they will be disposed of by a common order.
( 2 ) THE common point that arises for consideration in all these matters is whether the revision petitioner is entitled to execute the decree in O. S. No. 275/72 on the file of the Ist Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada and is permitted to proceed with E. Ps. 37 of 1984 and 39 of 1984.
( 3 ) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S No. 275 of 1972 while the respondent in all these proceedings is the sole defendant in the said suit. To obviate any probable confusion, the parties in these revision petitions are referred to as arrayed in the suit.
( 4 ) BEFORE considering the point in dispute between the parties, the circumstances that led to the filing of these revision petitions have to be seen. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of a building situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada. The said building (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises in the course of the order) originally belonged to Nalam Seetharamachandra Murthy and the demised premises was let out to the defendant by the said Seetharamachandra murthy in the year 1961. While so, the demised premises was purchased by the plaintiff on 1-3-1971. Having purchased the demised premises, the plaintiff obtained a lease deed from the defendant on 13-3-1971 for 11 months on condition that the defendant pays rental at Rs. 350/- per month. Under the said sale deed, the defendant agreed to vacate the demised premises by 12-2-1972 but has not accordingly vacated the same. Having issued a registered notice terminating the tenancy, the plaintiff tiled O. S. No. 275/72 on the file of Ist Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada for eviction of the defendant and claiming future profits at Rs. 900/- per month. In turn, the defendant filed O. S. No. 613/72 on the file of the district Munsif Court, Vijayawada against the plaintiff, for permanent injunction not to evict him from the demised premises. Later O. S. No. 613/72 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vijayawada was withdrawn and made over to the file of the Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada and renumbered the same as O. S. No. 101/73 on the file of the Ist Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. O. S. No. 275/72 and O. S. No. 101/73 were disposed of by a common judgment dated October 31, 1974 whereunder o. S. No. 101/73, the suit for injunction filed by the defendant was dismissed with costs and O. S. No. 275/72 was decreed with costs as prayed for granting future profits to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree in O. S No. 272/72 the defendant filed A. S. No. 657/74 on the file of this court. Similarly aggrieved by the dismissal of O. S. No. 101/73 the defendant filed A. S. No. 488/76 on the file of this court. A. S. No. 657/74 and A. S. No. 488/76 were dismissed for default and aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal no. 4079/82 on the file of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was pleased to allow the said appeal and directed the High Court to hear the appeals. Thus when A. S. Nos. 657/74 and 488/76 came up for hearing, being restored to file, the defendant file
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
