9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. 2. Jurisdiction of the civil court after the expiry of the ten-year exemption period. 3. Interpretation of Section 13(1) of the Act. 4. Legislative intent and purpose of the exemption period. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973: The primary issue in these appeals is whether the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 barred the lower courts from passing decrees directing the appellants to deliver possession of the properties to the respondents. The Act, which came into force on April 25, 1973, aims to control the increase of rent and the eviction of tenants from certain buildings and rented land within urban areas. Section 1(3) of the Act states, "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." The buildings in question were constructed shortly before the commencement of the tenancies in 1977, and the suits for possession were filed within the ten-year exemption period. 2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court After the Expiry of the Ten-Year Exemption Period: The appellants argued that the court lost its jurisdiction to pass decrees after the ten-year exemption period ended, making any decree passed thereafter a nullity. They relied on Section 13(1) of the Act, which states, "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." The appellants contended that the specific procedure prescribed in the Act must be followed for eviction, and any civil court decree would be unenforceable. 3. Interpretation of Section 13(1) of the Act: The respondents countered that the suits were instituted to enforce legal rights that had already accrued under the law applicable at the time of filing. They argued that the court's jurisdiction to determine such rights could not be deprived by the expiration of the ten-year exemption period. The respondents emphasized that the Act does not contain any provision expressly extinguishing the right of the plaintiff or preventing the execution of a decree passed in a validly instituted suit. They argued that the legislative intent was to encourage new constructions by providing a temporary exemption from rent control, not to create a judicial vacuum or make the exemption period futile. 4. Legislative Intent and Purpose of the Exemption Period: The court examined the legislative intent behind the exemption period, noting that it aimed to encourage the construction of new buildings by providing a temporary relief from rent control restrictions. The court referred to several precedents, including the cases of *Firms Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand*, *Shri Ram Saroop Rai v. Smt. Lilavati*, and *Mohinder Kumar v. State of Haryana*, which supported the view that suits instituted during the exemption period could be continued and decrees executed even after the period ended. The court emphasized that the exemption was intended to incentivize new constructions and that depriving landlords of their right to possession after the exemption period would defeat this purpose. Conclusion: The court concluded that there is no provision in the Act taking away the jurisdiction of a civil court to dispose of a suit validly instituted during the exemption period. Section 13(1) does not expressly refer to the execution of a decree for possession, and the legislative intent was to encourage new constructions by providing a temporary exemption from rent control. The court held that the rights of the parties crystallized on the date of the suit's institution, and the execution of a decree cannot be stopped by the provisions of Section 13. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the decrees for possession were upheld.
|
