LexM/S. M. SUBBARAO AND SONS versus YASHODAMMA AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MIS. M. SUBBARAO AND SONS v. YASHODAMMA AND ORS'. SEPTEMBER 17. 2002 . B [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction : Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999-Section 70(2)(a)-Repeal of C Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961-Ejfect of oi1 execzltion of decrees passed under the 1961 Act-Held, pending executions in respect of decrees passed under the 1961 Act are saved-Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899- Section 6. D In eviction proceedings in respect of non-residentiai premises the plinth area of which exceeded 14 sq. mts., eviction was ordered against the appellant- tenants under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Old Act) and they were directed to vacate the premises on or before 11.3.2002. Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 (New Act) came into force w.e.f. E 31.12.2001 and the Old Act was repealed. The New iĀ„t was not applicable to the non-residential premises, plinth area of which exceeded 14 sq. metres. When the appellant-tenants did not vacat~ the premises within the time granted, respondent-landlords filed execution petition. Tenants objected to the maintainability of the execution proceedings on the ground that the decree F passed under the Old Act in. respect of the premises to which provisions of the New Act were not applicable, had ceased to be executable with the repeal of the Old Act. The objection was overruled by executing Court. In revision, High Court held that where an order of eviction has already been passed under the Old Act and is pending in execution, such proceedings G can be continued and disposed of by executing Court as if the Old Act had not been repealed; and that eviction order passed under the Old Act which has become final and conclusive on or before 30.12.2001, in regard to which no execution was levied on or before 30.12.2001 also can be executed thereafter. H In appeal to this Court, appellant-tenants contended that since on t~. 448 MIS. M. SUBBARAO & SONS v. Y ASHODAMMA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 449 date of commenceme~t&f the New Act no proceeding was pending, the decree, A in view of Section 70(2)(c) .of;fh~ New Act, would stand abated on 31.12.2001, and hence the proceed.i.i!i: for execution of abated decree was not maintainable. Dismissing the appeal, the Court ' HELD: ExecutiRg ~ourt and the High Court have not erred in holding B the decree not abated and available for execution as a valid decree in spite of the repeal of the Old Act by Section 70 of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999. Under Section 70(2Xa) of the New Act pending executions in respect of decrees passed under the Old Act are saved. A decree passed by a competent Court under Karnataka ~ent Control Act, 1961 cannot be said to be a 'case pending' on 31.12.2001. Inasmuch as the decree is not covered by any of the clauses of C sub-section (2) of Section 70 9f the New Act (as also by Section 69 of the New Act which speaks of transfer of pending cases) the decree would be covered under sub-Section (3) and attract applicability of Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 and would be protected thereunder. The decree defines the right of landlord to eviction of tenant and the obligation or liability D of the tenant to vacate the premises unde.r pain of execution. Such a right, obligation or liability. is not"'affected by repeal of an enactment unless a different intention'anpears. 'No such different intention appears from the provisions of the New Act. 1453-A; 454-A; 452-F-H) Mahendra Saree Emporium v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy. 12002) 5 SCC E 416, distinguished. Mis. Mercury Press & Ors. v. Ameen Shacoor and Ors., ILR (2002) Kar 2304 and Raminder Singh Sethi v. D. Vijayarangam, (2002) 4 SCC 675- referred to. .. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5912 of2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.2002 of the Kamataka High Court in H.R.R.P. No. 413 of2002. F Kiran Suri, S.S.f.a~maraj, Charu Wallinkhanna, Mohd. S. Hussain and G Shankar Divate, for JaJ>pearing parties. ' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, J. Le~ve granted. The landlord-respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant- H 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A appellants on the grounds available under Clauses (t), (h) and (p) of sub- section (I) of Section 21 of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Old Act", for short). The trial Court directed eviction of the tenants Qn all the three grounds. In a revision pre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.