EAST INDIA CORPORATION LTD versus SHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 16-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
EAST INDIA CORPORATION LTD. 
V. 
SHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. 
APRIL 16, 1991 
) -
B 
[DR. T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction: Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent 
Control) Act, 1960---S. 10, 14 to 16--Eviction of tenant-Jurisdiction 
of civil court.:_Scope of. 
c 
Constitution of India: Article 14--Declaration of constitutional 
invalidity of statutory provision-Effect of. 
-<,-
Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948: 
Ss. 9, 16. Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: 
s. 30(ii). 
D 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: S. 9-Jurisdiction of Civil Court 
under s. JO of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 
.. 
1960-Extent of. 
>--
Words & Phrases: Coram non judice. 
E 
The .respondent r.Jed a suit against the appellant fo~ recovery of 
possession of a building on the ground of wilful default in payment of 
rent which was Rs.900 per month. The appellant denied the relationship 
of landlord and tenant, claiming himself as one of the "associates" 
--< 
or "co-sharers" or "co-owners" of the building. The Mausif decreed 
F 
the suit; and the decree was aftlrmed in appeal by the fll'St appellate 
court as also by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
During the pendency of the present appeal, cl. (ii) of s. 30 of Tamil 
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which exempted 
G 
from application of the Act premises the monthly rent in respect of 
which exceeded Rs.400, and on the basis of which the suit giving rise to 
.._
the present appeal emanated, was struck down in a judgment by this 
> 
Court.** 
The appellant contended that as a result of the declaration by this 
H 
Court of the constitutional invalidity of clause (ii) of s. 30, of the Act, 
-
310 
-
EAST INDIA v. MEENAKSHI MILLS 
311 
which excluded from the purview of the Act any building or part thereof 
let out on a monthly rent of Rs.400, the decree of the civil court. became 
null and void and of no effect. On behalf of the respondent it was 
A 
" 
submitted that the decree passed by the civil court was not a nullity for 
the Act did not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court but only prohibited 
. execution of a decree for eviction otherwise than in accordance with the 
relevant statutory provision; and that such a decree was not void, but 
was merely under an eclipse, and would become executable as and when 
the bar is removed. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Section 10 of Tamil Nadn Bnildl"W' (Lease and Rent 
C 
Control) Act, 1960 prohibits jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of 
eviction of a tenant whether in execntion of a decree or otherwise except 
in accordance with the provisions of that sedlon and ss. 14 to 16. The 
sole circumstance and the condition precedent to the exercise of jnris-
diction by a civil conrt as stated in second 'proviso to s. 10( 1) is that the 
tenant should have denied the title of the landlord or claimed right of D 
permanent tenancy and the Controller, on sncb denial or claim by the 
tenant, reaches a decision and duly records a finding that sncb denial or 
claim was bona fide and only when these conditions are satisfied jnris-
diction of the civil court can be invoked to pass a decree for eviction on 
any of the grounds mentioned in s. 10 or ss. 14 to 16. Except to this 
limited extent the jnrisdictlon of the civil court is completely barred and E 
the same is vested in the tribunals set up under the Act. Any suit 
instituted by a landlord for eviction of a tenant from a building falling 
within the ambit of the Act, otherwise than as stipulated by the section 
is, therefore, incompetent for lack of jurisdiction of the court and 
any decree of the court in such a suit is null and void and of no 
effect. [317D-E, G-H; 318A-D, G-H] 
f 
Sushi/ Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, [1990] 1 SCC page 
193, referred to. 
1.2 The decision of the Controller is concerned solely with the 
bona fides, and not the~orn:i:tness or validity,_Ofthe_denial or claim, for 
these difficult questions of title are by the statute reserved for decision G 
by the appropriate civil court which is the more competent forum in 
such matters. [318D-E] 
Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab Bissoi, [1962] 3 SCR 673, referred to. 
1.3 H the decision of the Controller is that tenant's denlal or H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 
A claim is not bona fide, the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot he 
invoked by the landlord and the Controller will then be t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.