9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 666 - SC - Indian LawsChallenged the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court - Suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sale - Arrears of rent - Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction - denial of relationship of landlord and tenant - Counter-claim under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure - mesne profits - HELD THAT - In the counter-claim although the Respondents have claimed mesne profits at the rate of ₹ 1500 per month from 10.11.1992 till 9.11.1995, i.e., for a period of only 3 years only and also in future, the Trial Judge did not discuss the evidence which might have been adduced by the parties in that behalf. The Division Bench of the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, on the other hand, examined the question on the premise that the Appellants were in arrears of rent for the period from January, 1977 to June, 1996 and thus, became a defaulter. The contention of the Appellant that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction was repelled by the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore without going into the aforementioned aspect of the matter. We have noticed hereinbefore that the Respondents in the counterclaim did not advance a plea for forfeiture of tenancy nor did they raise any contention that the landlord has issued a notice conveying his intention to determine the lease It is now well-settled that a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction only on the basis that the tenant has denied their title. The matter might have been different if the civil court has otherwise jurisdiction to entertain a suit. The legislature has created new rights and liabilities for both the landlord and tenant in terms of the provisions of the said Act and provided a forum therefore. The jurisdiction of the civil court having been barred except in a situation where the proviso appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 10 would be attracted, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction on a ground envisaged u/s 10(2)(vi) of the A.P. Building (Lease. Rent Eviction) Control Act. The Civil Court, thus, had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim. The impugned judgment to the aforementioned extent, therefore, cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed in part so far as it relates to the counter-claim made by the Respondents herein However, that part of the judgment whereby and whereunder the Appellant's suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed is upheld.
Issues Involved:
1. Specific performance of an oral agreement of sale. 2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits. 3. Denial of the landlord-tenant relationship and its implications. 4. Validity of the counter-claim without framing specific issues. 5. Application of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. 6. Requirement of notice for forfeiture of tenancy. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Specific Performance of an Oral Agreement of Sale: The Appellant, a tenant, alleged an oral agreement for the sale of the property for Rs. 80,000, claiming that approval from the Ceiling Authorities was necessary and granted in 1977. The Appellant asserted he only learned of this approval in 1997 and subsequently filed a suit for specific performance. Both the Trial Court and the High Court rejected the Appellant's claim, finding he failed to establish the existence of the oral agreement. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, noting the Appellant's inability to persuade the Court otherwise. 2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Entertain a Counter-Claim for Eviction and Mesne Profits: The Respondents filed a counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits, asserting the Appellant forfeited his right to continue as a tenant by denying the landlord-tenant relationship. The Trial Court entertained this counter-claim despite not framing specific issues and allowed it based on the Appellant's failure to prove the oral agreement. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted by the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which mandates that eviction proceedings must be initiated before the Rent Controller. 3. Denial of the Landlord-Tenant Relationship and Its Implications: The Appellant's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship was a key issue. The Respondents contended that this denial justified eviction under the Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court noted that denial of the landlord's title is a ground for eviction under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act, but such a determination must be made by the Rent Controller. The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim for eviction based solely on the denial of title. 4. Validity of the Counter-Claim Without Framing Specific Issues: The Trial Court did not frame specific issues regarding the counter-claim but proceeded to consider it under a general issue. The Supreme Court found this approach flawed, emphasizing the necessity of framing specific issues to ensure a fair trial. The lack of specific issues led to an inadequate examination of evidence related to the counter-claim. 5. Application of the Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate: The Respondents argued that the Appellant could not approbate and reprobate by denying the landlord-tenant relationship while seeking benefits under the alleged oral agreement. The Supreme Court acknowledged this doctrine but clarified that it could not be applied to circumvent statutory provisions. The Appellant's inconsistent pleas did not justify the Civil Court's jurisdiction over the counter-claim. 6. Requirement of Notice for Forfeiture of Tenancy: The Supreme Court highlighted that forfeiture of tenancy requires proper notice under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Respondents did not serve such notice, which is a prerequisite for forfeiture. Consequently, the counter-claim for eviction based on forfeiture was invalid without compliance with statutory requirements. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment to the extent it allowed the counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits, citing the Civil Court's lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities. However, it upheld the dismissal of the Appellant's suit for specific performance of the oral agreement. The appeal was allowed in part, with no costs awarded.
|
