9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Controller under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. 2. Nullity of the Decree. 3. Applicability of Res Judicata. 4. Delay in Filing Leave Application. Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Controller under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act The main contention was whether the Civil Court had inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment of the appellant-tenant, or if the decree was a nullity due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Controller under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. The Supreme Court held that the Act provides exclusive jurisdiction to the Controller for eviction matters, and by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. The Court stated, "By necessary implication the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of C.P.C. is excluded." Issue 2: Nullity of the Decree The appellant argued that the decree passed by the Civil Court was a nullity and could be challenged at any stage, including execution. The Supreme Court agreed, citing precedents such as Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., which held that "a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings." Issue 3: Applicability of Res Judicata The respondent contended that the decree had become final and operated as res judicata. However, the Supreme Court clarified that a decree passed without jurisdiction does not operate as res judicata. The Court explained, "A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the Court... the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a case of decree of nullity." Issue 4: Delay in Filing Leave Application The respondent argued that the leave application was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court found no delay in filing the leave application, noting, "The leave application was filed within the limitation from the date of original order of dismissal of the revision or on a later date dismissing the review application." Conclusion The Supreme Court concluded that the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass the decree of ejectment, rendering the decree a nullity. The decree did not operate as res judicata, and the appellant could challenge it at the execution stage. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. The Court stated, "The appeal is accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs."
|
