Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
Suresh Kumar
Versus
Bhim Sain
R.S.A. No. 344 of 1976,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 14, 1978
HARYANA RENT ACT - EXEMPTION FROM ACT - AMENDMENT ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - EVICTION OF TENANT - SECTION 1(3), 13 - CIVIL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS A DECREE FOR EJECTMENT AGAINST A TENANT WITH RESPECT TO RENTED BUILDINGS AND LANDS GOVERNED BY THE HARYANA RENT ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the owner of a shop constructed in 1966, leased it to the defendant from April 26, 1967, to April 21, 1968. The plaintiff filed a suit for the defendant's ejectment, claiming that the building was exempt from the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (Haryana Rent Act). The trial court and the District Judge upheld the plaintiff's claim. The defendant appealed, arguing that an amendment to the Haryana Rent Act in 1978 removed the exemption for the shop and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to order his ejectment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the 1978 amendment to the Haryana Rent Act was retrospective and applied to the shop in dispute, which was constructed after the commencement of the Act. The court found that the amendment removed the exemption for non-residential buildings completed after March 31, 1962, and that the civil court's jurisdiction to order ejectment was impliedly excluded by the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the 1978 amendment to the Haryana Rent Act was retrospective and applied to the shop in dispute? 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to order the defendant's ejectment under the amended Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the language of Section 2 of the 1978 amendment, which stated that the amended Section 1(3) of the Haryana Rent Act "shall be deemed to have been substituted" from the date of the Act's commencement. The court held that this language clearly indicated that the amendment was intended to have retrospective effect. 2. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Rent Act, which prescribed the procedure for ejecting tenants and provided that a landlord must apply to a Controller for an order of ejectment. The court found that the language of Section 13 impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of civil courts to order ejectment in cases governed by the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the defendant's appeal, setting aside the decree for ejectment passed by the lower courts. The court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to order the defendant's ejectment under the amended Haryana Rent Act.
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 344 and 345 of 1976, and R.S.A. 1518 of 1977, which involve common questions of law. The facts in the judgment are being given from R.S.A. No. 344 of 1976.
2. Bhim Sain plaintiff is the owner of the shop in dispute which is alleged to have been constructed in the year 1966. It was leased out to the defendant from April 26, 196 to April 21, 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- plus municipal taxes vide lease deed dated April 26, 1967. It is further averred that the defendant materially diminished the value and utility of the shop in dispute. He consequently after serving a notice on the defendant, filed a suit for his ejectment, pleading that the building was exempt from the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Rent Act). The suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds. The learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant went up in appeal before the District Judge, Bhiwani, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed it. He has come up in second appeal to this Court.
3. It is contended by Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant, that the Haryana Rent Act has been amended by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act), by virtue of which inter alia Section 1 of the Haryana Rent Act was amended. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the amendment, of Section 1, the property in dispute is no longer exempt from the purview of the Haryana Rent Act, and consequently the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has ceased to exist for passing a decree for ejectment against the appellant. According to the counsel, if it is so, the decree of ejectment passed by the civil Court is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
4. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the argument of the learned counsel. In order to determine this question it will be relevant to reproduce Sections 1 and 13 of the Haryana Rent Act and Section 2 of the Amendment Act. Sections 1 and 13 of the Haryana Rent Act are as under :
"1. Short title and extent. - (1) ........ .......... ..........
(2) ........ .......... ..........
(3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to - (i) any residential 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 ;
(ii) any non-residential building construction of which is completed after the 31st March, 1962.
(iii) any rented land let out on or after 31st March, 1962.
13. Eviction of tenants (1) 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.
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller, for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied, - ........ ......... .......... ........ ......... ..........
Section 2 of the Amendment Act is as under :
"2. Amendment of Section 1 of Haryana Act II of 1973 : "For Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), the following Sub-section shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted, namely :
`(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."
From a reading of Section 1(3)(ii), it is evident that the Haryana Rent Act did not apply to a non-residential building construction of which was completed after March 31, 1962. Similarly, it was not applicable to rented land let out on or after March 31, 1962. The position was, however, slightly different reg
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
