Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 60
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sen
R V S MANI, ADVOCATE – Appellant
Versus
BALKRISHNA NANAKRAM AND ANR – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 650 of 1951
Decided on : 21-04-1952
N S Nandedkar, Advocates
The jurisdiction of civil courts to try suits involving a claim for rent or for damages for use and occupation has not been taken away by either the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 or the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1947 and 1949.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - REGULATION OF LETTING OF ACCOMMODATION ACT, 1946 (C.P. & BERAR ACT 11 OF 1946), SECS. 2, 7 - CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1947 AND 1949, CLAUSES 5, 13, 21(3) - LIMITATION ACT, 1908, SEC. 19 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LIABILITY TO PAY RENT - WHETHER CONDITIONAL - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT TO TRY SUIT FOR ARREARS OF RENT - WHETHER BARRED BY LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for arrears of rent against the Defendant, who was their tenant. The Defendant contested the suit on various grounds, including jurisdiction and limitation. The trial court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for arrears of rent, as the jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred by the Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 or the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1947 and 1949. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the Defendant had acknowledged his liability to pay rent in his reply to the Plaintiffs' notice.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for arrears of rent? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of civil courts to try suits involving a claim for rent or for damages for use and occupation has not been taken away by either the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 (hereafter called the Act) or the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1947 and 1949 (hereafter called the Order). 2. The Defendant had acknowledged his liability to pay rent in his reply to the Plaintiffs' notice, dated 30-10-1946, which was within three years of the date of filing the suit. Therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition to the extent of setting aside the finding on the question of limitation and directing the trial court to try this issue afresh along with other issues after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence.
Sen, J—This is an application by the Defendant to revise the order, dated 19-7-1951, of the Court of the 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Nagpur, in civil suit No. 130-B of 1949.
2. The Plaintiffs Balkrishna and Shamrao instituted a suit on 29-10-1949 for Rs. 1,755-0-0 on account of arrears of rent. The case of the Plaintiffs is that they purchased a house on 22-10-1943, which is in occupation of the Defendant as a tenant en a rent of Rs. 27-0-0 per month. The Defendant had not paid rent since 1-10-1943. A notice, dated 10-10-1946, was served by the Plaintiffs demanding Rs. 972-0-0 on account of rent from 1-11-1943 to 31-10-1946. The Defendant in his reply, dated 30-10-1946, acknowledged his liability to pay the arrears of rent, but stated that he had spent some amount for repairs. He admitted his liability for the arrears on 21-6-1946 and 14-3-1947 before the Rent Controller, Nagpur. In his affidavit, dated 19-6-1947, in revenue case No. 220/33-7 of 1946-47, the Defendant acknowledged his liability to pay the amount. According to the Plaintiffs, these acknowledgments saved the claim from the bar of limitation. It is also the case of the Plaintiffs that they were not liable to pay any amount to the Defendant on account of repairs. The Defendant had paid Rs. 162-0-0 by money-order and rent was due from him from 1-4-1944 to 30-9-1949.
3. The claim was contested on various grounds. I will refer to the pleas which arise for consideration in this revision. They are about jurisdiction and limitation. Paragraphs 3(iv), (v) and (vi) of the written statement are as follows:
In Revenue Appeal No. 459/33-7/1947-48 decided on 6-12-1948 arising from Revenue Case No. 902/33-7/1947-48 decided on 16-7-1948, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner gave the following judgment:
It seems to be a nasty case which is an instance of the landlord's tyranny against a tenant. The tenant has been remitting rent, from time to time by money-orders and the landlord' has been refusing them and coming up to the Court with the plea that the tenant is residing in the house without rent for the last 5 years.... Since he has refused to receive rents sent by money-orders, to him by the tenant, he has no grounds to say that the tenant has been in arrears of rent.
(v) The above last case disposed of the question of any liability for any arrears of rent payable by the Defendant till 16-12-1948 and hence the jurisdiction of this Court to try the same is barred under Section 7 of the Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act 11 of 1946.
(vi) The claim for any alleged arrears of rent therefore till 16-12-1948 is without any jurisdiction and hence liable to be dismissed.
Regarding limitation, the Defendant stated in para. 4 (i) and (ii).
The acknowledgments to pay by the Defendant was subject to the condition precedent that the Defendant be treated as a tenant by the Plaintiffs and not as a trespasser and hence limitation is not saved for the alleged claim. The Plaintiffs by repudiating the relationship of landlords and tenant between themselves and the Defendant made it impossible for the Defendant to pay and even when he remitted the same by money-orders, they were persistently refused by the Plaintiffs.
(ii) The claim therefore upto 29-10-1946 that is for 3 years next to the date of filing the plaint is barred by limitation.
4. In view of these pleas of the Defendant, the following issues were framed:
2(b) - Whether the jurisdiction of this Court to try the claim of Plaintiffs for arrears of rent till 16-12-1948 is barred under Section 7 of the Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act 11 of 1946.
3. Whether Plaintiffs' claim upto 29-10-1946 is barred by limitation?
In the order-sheet, dated 4-4-1950, it is stated that the parties desired that these issues be taken up as preliminary issues. On 18-4-1950, the next date of hearing, Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that these issues could not be decided without evidence. The Defendant replied that the question could not b
