Back
1997 Supreme(HP) 65
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA
RAM BHAJ - Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPLE GOVERNMENT URDU TEACHING & RESEARCH CENTRE - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 59 of 1992
Decided On : 03/26/1997
Parties represented by :Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.A. Sharma, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
A change in law during the pendency of proceedings does not affect the applicability of the law in force at the time of the institution of the proceedings, unless the new law specifically provides for its retrospective application.
Headnote:
URBAN RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 2(K) - EXCLUSION OF AREA FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS - EFFECT ON JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROLLER - CHANGE IN LAW DURING PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS - APPLICABILITY OF LAW AT THE TIME OF INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the landlord, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, the tenant, under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, on grounds of change of user and bonafide requirement for own use. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction on the ground of change of user. The respondent appealed, and the Appellate Authority set aside the eviction order, holding that the demised premises were no longer part of the urban area and the Rent Act was not applicable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demised premises were excluded from the urban area of Solan during the pendency of the eviction proceedings due to a notification issued by the Governor under the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968. Consequently, the provisions of the Rent Act ceased to apply to the area, and the Rent Controller lost jurisdiction over the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the law applicable at the time of the institution of eviction proceedings continues to govern the case even if there is a change in law during the pendency of the proceedings. 2. Whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to pass an eviction order after the demised premises were excluded from the urban area.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The law applicable at the time of the institution of proceedings governs the case, and a subsequent change in law during the pendency of the proceedings does not affect the applicability of the law in force at the time of institution. 2. The exclusion of the demised premises from the urban area during the pendency of the eviction proceedings resulted in the cessation of the applicability of the Rent Act to the area, and the Rent Controller lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, upholding the Appellate Authority's order setting aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The court held that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to pass the eviction order after the demised premises were excluded from the urban area.
R.L. Khurana, J.- The petitioner has directed the present revision petition, under section 24(b) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 26.11.1991 of the learned Appellate Authority (II), Nahan, Camp at Solan, reversing the order dated 18.11.1990 of the learned Rent Controller, Kandaghat.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these. The petitioner is the landlord owner of the property, detailed, in the petition and hereinafter referred to as the demised premises, situated at Saproon, Tehsil Solan The demised premises were let out by him to the respondent for being used as an office on an annual rental of Rs. 111/- excluding electricity charges, on 10.7.1978.
3. The petitioner filed a petition under section 14 of the HP. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, for the ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises on the following grounds:- (a) Change of user; and (b) Bonafide requirement for own use and occupation.
4. The respondent resisted the petition. Change in the user of the demised on his part and bonafide requirement of the petitioner was denied.
5. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition and passed an order on 18.4.1990 for the eviction of the respondent on the ground of change of user. The other ground put forth by the petitioner that the demised premises are bonafide required by him for his own and occupation did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller.
6. The respondent went up in appeal against the order dated 18.4.1990 before the learned Appellate Authority. Vide the impugned order, dated 26.11.1991, the learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the demised premises did not form part of the urban area of Solan, within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987. The Rent Act was, therefore, not applicable and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction.
7. The petitioner be way of the present petition has assailed the finings of the learned Appellate Authority.
8. There is no denying that the demised premises are situated in Khasra No. 294 of Saproon area. The Governor of Himachal Pradesh on 15.7.1988, in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 6(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968, as then in force, had, vide notification No. LSG (7) 23/71-11, excluded certain areas of Saproon from the Municipal limits of Solan. The area so excluded also included khasra No. 294, that is, the demised premises. Upon such exclusion, the area so excluded ceased to be urban area within the meaning of section 2(K) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 consequently, the provisions of the said Act ceased to apply to such area.
9. The eviction petition was filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller on 12.8.1987, that is, during the period when the demised premises fell within the urban area of Solan. It was excluded from such urban area only with effect from 15.7.1988, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the demised premises formed part of the urban area of Solan and the provisions of Rent Act were applicable as on the date of the institution of the eviction petition, the law applicable on the date of the institution of the eviction petition alone would govern the case and the mere feet that the demised premises came to be excluded from the urban area of Solan, during the pendency of the case, the Rent Controller would not cease to have jurisdiction. In support of her contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the apex court in Ramesh Chandra v. III Additional District Judge and others (1992) 1 SCC 751).
11. In the case before the apex Court, a Civil suit was filed by the landlord in the year 1977
