2022 (4) TMI 1431 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of decree by the civil court - Applicability of for a period of ten years from the date of construction of the building - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 - HELD THAT - In OM PRAKASH GUPTA VERSUS DIG VIJENDRAPAL GUPTA 1982 (3) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT a question arose whether the Rent Act would be applicable to a building which was constructed prior to the applicability of the Rent Act and whether the exemption granted to newly constructed buildings would be available to such building. It was held that the Rent Act is not applicable to a building which does not have a standing for ten years even if the building was constructed prior to the applicability of the State Urban Rent Act to the area in question. However in a later judgment reported as Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera 1984 (1) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT it was held that under the U.P. Rent Act even if the suit was filed within the exemption period and if the decree is not passed the decree would be not executable after the Rent Act will became applicable. A perusal of the said provisions goes to show that the tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Considering the said provisions this Court in a judgment reported as Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia 1988 (8) TMI 426 - SUPREME COURT held that if the suit has been filed within the exemption period of ten years the decree could be executed. Under the Punjab Rent Act the provision is explicit that no decree for eviction passed before or after the commencement of the Act can be executed whereas under the Haryana Rent Act a tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act - Section 18 does not talk about the validity of any decree of the civil court but only restricts the jurisdiction of the civil court from the date the Act became applicable. The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e. after the civil suit was filed therefore the decree could validly be passed and executed. After the applicability of the Act to the area in question the landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only before the Rent Tribunal but not before the civil court. However a suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question. The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit. There are no error in the order passed by the High Court - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Rent Tribunal
2. Applicability of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
3. Execution of Decree by Civil Court
4. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of Rent Control Legislation
5. Rights of Parties Determined at the Commencement of Lis

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Rent Tribunal:
The main issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession after the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (the Act) became applicable to the area in question. The Act, specifically Section 18, states that only the Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide disputes between landlords and tenants once the Act is applicable. However, the court clarified that this provision does not affect suits and proceedings initiated and pending before the Act's applicability. Therefore, the civil court's jurisdiction to pass the decree was upheld as the suit was filed before the Act became applicable.

2. Applicability of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001:
The Act became applicable to the area in question from 11.5.2015, as per the notification issued by the State Government. The appellant argued that after the Act's applicability, only the Rent Tribunal had jurisdiction, and thus, the civil court's decree was invalid. However, the court concluded that the Act does not have retrospective application and does not affect decrees passed by civil courts before the Act's applicability.

3. Execution of Decree by Civil Court:
The court examined whether the decree for possession passed by the civil court could be executed after the Act became applicable. It was held that the decree could be validly executed as the suit was filed before the Act's applicability. The court referred to several precedents, including judgments under the U.P. Rent Act and Haryana Rent Act, to support the view that decrees passed by civil courts before the applicability of rent control legislation remain executable.

4. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of Rent Control Legislation:
The court emphasized that rent control legislation, including the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, does not have retrospective application unless explicitly stated. The Act's provisions apply prospectively, and therefore, do not affect suits filed or decrees passed before the Act's applicability. The court cited several judgments, including Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera and Mansoor Khan v. Motiram Harebhan Kharat, to illustrate that rights crystallize on the date of suit filing, and subsequent changes in law do not affect pending suits.

5. Rights of Parties Determined at the Commencement of Lis:
The court reiterated the principle that the rights of parties are determined based on the law in force at the time of suit filing. This principle was upheld in various judgments, including ECGC Limited v. Mokul Shriram EPC JV, where it was held that the provisions of the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, would not apply to complaints filed under the old Act. Similarly, in this case, the court held that the decree passed by the civil court before the Act's applicability was valid and executable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decree for possession passed by the civil court. The court found no error in the High Court's judgment and concluded that the civil court had jurisdiction to pass the decree, which remained executable despite the subsequent applicability of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The Act did not have retrospective application, and the rights of the parties were determined based on the law in force at the time of suit filing.