2003 (8) TMI 528 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the landlord-tenant relationship as proved and the appellants having incurred liability for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as alleged by the respondents?

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Court in passing the decree without allowing the tenant to deposit rent during the pendency of the suit.
- Validity of the decree in light of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the subsequent Rajasthan Act.
- Execution of the decree challenged by the judgment debtors-appellants.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction regarding a decree passed without affording the tenant the opportunity to deposit rent during the pendency of the suit. The appellants argued that the decree, based on default in rent payment, was rendered without jurisdiction due to the failure of the Court to provide the privilege conferred by the Rajasthan Act. The Court clarified that a decree can be considered a nullity only if the Court usurped jurisdiction it did not possess. The lack of jurisdiction must be evident on the face of the decree for it to be deemed a nullity, allowing the executing Court to consider it as such.

Regarding the validity of the decree under the Rent Control Act and the Rajasthan Act, the Court emphasized that the tenant must actively seek the opportunity to deposit rent to mitigate default effects during the proceedings. The appellants' failure to make such an application prevented them from challenging the decree's validity on procedural grounds during execution. The Court distinguished between an illegal decree, resulting from procedural irregularity, and a decree lacking jurisdiction or being a nullity. The plea raised by the appellants was deemed untimely as it could have been raised during the appeal against the decree but was not.

The execution of the decree was challenged by the judgment debtors-appellants, contending that the decree was inexecutable due to the procedural irregularity. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the challenge sought to expose a procedural flaw rather than a lack of jurisdiction, rendering the decree illegal. The executing Court was directed to proceed promptly with the execution proceedings, highlighting the importance of timely legal actions and the distinction between procedural irregularities and jurisdictional nullities in legal proceedings.