Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the tenant-appellants against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which had dismissed their revision petition and upheld the decree for possession passed by the civil court. The dispute pertains to a shop in Suratgarh, Rajasthan, which was originally let out to the appellant's father in 1982 on a monthly rent of Rs. 583.33. After the father's death, the appellant became the monthly tenant. The landlord-respondent served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and filed a suit for possession on 18.4.2013 in the civil court. At that time, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was not applicable to the area. However, during the pendency of the suit, the State Government issued a notification on 11.7.2014 extending the Act to the area with effect from 11.5.2015. The civil court passed the decree for possession on 28.5.2015, after the Act became applicable. The appellant's first appeal was dismissed, and the High Court in second appeal held that the decree could be passed as the Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in K. Ramnarayan Khandelwal v. Shri Pukhraj Banthiya, which held otherwise, had been stayed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed the legal question whether a decree passed by a civil court after the Act became applicable can be executed. The court examined Section 1(2) of the Act, which provides for its applicability to specified municipal areas, and Section 18 which vests jurisdiction in the Rent Tribunal. The court held that once the Act becomes applicable to an area, the civil court ceases to have jurisdiction, and any decree passed thereafter is void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that the decree could be saved because the suit was filed before the Act's applicability, emphasizing that jurisdiction is determined by the law as it stands on the date of the decree. The court also distinguished the present appeals from pending special leave petitions filed by landlords, noting that the appellants are tenants seeking to protect their possession. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal constituted under the Act for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Decree Void Ab Initio - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Sections 1(2), 18, 32 - The issue was whether a civil court decree for possession passed after the Act became applicable to the area is valid. The Supreme Court held that once the Act applies, the civil court loses jurisdiction and any decree passed thereafter is void ab initio and cannot be executed. The court set aside the decree and remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Applicability During Pendency - Effect of Notification - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 1(2) - The Act was extended to the area by notification dated 11.7.2014 with effect from 11.5.2015. The suit was filed on 18.4.2013, but the decree was passed on 28.5.2015, after the Act became applicable. The court held that the civil court lost jurisdiction on the date the Act became applicable, and the decree passed thereafter is without jurisdiction. (Paras 3-4, 7-10) C) Rent Control - Pending Special Leave Petitions - Interest of Parties - The court distinguished the present appeals from pending SLP(s) filed by landlords, noting that the appellants are tenants seeking to continue possession. The court decided the legal question independently. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a decree for possession passed by a civil court after the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 became applicable to the area in question is valid and executable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal constituted under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rent control legislation
- jurisdiction of civil court
- decree void ab initio
- applicability of Act during pendency
- Section 106 Transfer of Property Act
- Section 1(2) Rajasthan Rent Control Act
- 2001
