1977 (2) TMI 128 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and Competence to Let Out Premises
2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court
3. Retrospective Effect of Proviso to Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
4. Execution of Decree for Eviction

Summary:

1. Ownership and Competence to Let Out Premises:
The appellant purchased a shop in a building, which was an evacuee property, through a public auction. Despite paying the full purchase price and receiving possession, the sale certificate was not issued. The respondent, a tenant, attorned tenancy to the appellant. The appellant later terminated the tenancy and filed a suit for eviction. The respondent contested, claiming the appellant was not the owner due to the absence of a sale certificate. The Trial Court, Additional District Judge, and High Court held that the appellant was competent to let out the premises and there was a valid landlord-tenant relationship.

2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:
The respondent argued that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applied, ousting the civil court's jurisdiction. However, the courts held that since the premises belonged to the Government (due to the absence of a sale certificate), the Act did not apply, and the civil court had jurisdiction.

3. Retrospective Effect of Proviso to Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
An amendment to section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, introduced a proviso with retrospective effect, stating that the Act would apply to premises lawfully let by any person by virtue of an agreement with the Government. This proviso, deemed to have always been part of the Act, meant that the Delhi Rent Control Act applied to the tenancy, rendering the civil court's decree for eviction null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.

4. Execution of Decree for Eviction:
The executing court and the High Court held that the decree for eviction was a nullity due to the retrospective effect of the proviso. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that an executing court can declare a decree void if it was passed without inherent jurisdiction. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay arrears of rent in specified installments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the decree for eviction was null and void due to the retrospective application of the proviso to section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which applied the Act to the tenancy in question. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the respondent was directed to pay arrears of rent.