ATMA RAM MITTAL versus ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 22-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ATMA RAM MITT AL 
v. 
ISHW AR SINGH PUNJA 
AUGUST 22, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN,JJ.] 
Hmyww Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973: Sec-
tions 1(3) and 13( 1)-Exemption from applicability of Rent Control 
Act-Period of 'ten years' exemption-Expiring during pendency of 
eviction suit-Effect of-Once rights crystallise adjudication to be in 
accurJance ~vith law. 
Statutory Constitution: Purposive interpretation in a social 
amelioration legislation-An imperative irrespective of anything else. 
Words and Phrases: 'Actus curiam neminem gravabit'-Meaning 
D of 
The appellant-landlord filed a civil suit against the respondent-
ten.ant for possession of a shop which had been rented out by him in 
1978. The suit was filed on the basis that the respondent was in arrears 
~f rent from !st December, 1981 to 31st May, 1982, that the tenancy 
E 
had been terminated by giving a suit notice, and that Section 1(3) of the 
Haryana urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 exempted the 
building from the purview of the Act. 
On or about 15th February, 1983, the respondent-tenant filed his 
written statement, and in November· 1984, moved an application for 
F 
dismissal of the suit stating that the s~op in question was constructed in 
June 1974 and as such, the period of 10 years had elapsed by June 1984 
in. terms of Section 1(3) of the Act and as such, the immunity from the 
application of the Act having expired, the suit under the Act is not 
maintainable, and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. 
(; 
The Sub-Judge held that the decree was not necessary to be pas-
sed within the exemption period of LO years under Section 1(3) of the 
Act, and accordingly dismissed the respondent's application. 
The respondent preferred a revision petition to the High Court, 
which held that as the suit had not been decreed within the period of IO 
. Fl years, the. building in question came within the operation of the Act and 
528 
A.R. MITTAL v. 1.S. PUNIA 
529 
as such, the rent Act was.applicable and the Civil Court had no jurisdic• 
tion. The High Court allowed the petition and consequently dismissed 
the suit pending before the Sub-Judge. 
The landlord appealed to this Court by Special Leave. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the case, · 
HELD: L(a)'The rights 'of the parties will have to be determined 
on the ·basis of the rights available to' them on the date of the suit. The 
Judgment and Order of the High Court set aside, and order of the 
Sub-Judge restored. The suit to proceed in accorwmce with law. l533G-53SF] 
(b) Section 13 of the Act provides that the tenanlin possession of 
a building or a rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in 
accodance with the provisions of tbe said Section. Those provisions 
would not be applkable under Section 1(3) to a suit instituted within 10 
years from the date of the completion of the building in question. [534B] 
(c) It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of the fault 
of the Court or oelay in the procedure. "Actus curiam nenilnem · 
gravabit"-an act of Court shall prejudice no man. [534E] 
( d) Hal'ing regard to the time normally consumed for adjudica-
tion, the IO years exemption or holiday from the application of the Rent 
Act would become illusory, if the suit has to be filed within that time 
and be disposed of :rmally. l534F J 
(e) It is common knowledge that unless a suit is instituted soon 
after the date of letting, it would never be disposed of within IO years 
and even then within that time it may not be disposed of. That will make 
the 10 years holiday from the Rent Act illusory and provide no incentive 
to the landlords to build new houses to solve problem of shortages of 
houses. The purpose of the legislation would thus be defeated. [534Gl 
(f) Bearing in mind the well-settled principle, that the rights of 
parties' crystallise on the date of the institution of the snit; the meaning-
ful construction must be that the exemption would apply for a·period of 
IO years and will continue to be available until the suit is disposed of or 
adjudicated. Such suit or proceedings must be instituted within the 
stipulated 'period of IO years. Once rights crystallise the adjudication 
must be in accordance with law. [535E] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
.,'\ 
Vineet Kumar v. Mangat Sain Wadhera, [1984] 3 S.C.C. 3S2; 
Nand Kishore Marwah and Ors. v. Spmundri Devi, [1987] 4 S.C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.