MOHINDER LAL versus SMT SAROJ KUMARI VERMA

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 13-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MOHINDER LAL 
v. 
SMT SAROJ KUMAR! VERMA 
JANLAR Y L3, 2000 
[S.R MATMLDAR AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 : 
Eviction suit-<3vil Court-Jurisdiction to entertain-- Exemption-From 
the purview of Rent Control Act-Notifications dated 3 l. l.1973 and 24. 9.1973 
exempted new building from the purview of the Act for a period of five 
years-Mode of computation-Held : Where sewerage connection can be 
given to a building the period of exemption is to be counted from the date 
D when such connection is granted by the competent authority; where sewerage 
connection cannot be granted, as for instance, in the case of booths the period 
is to be counted from the date electric connection is first given by the 
competent authority and in a case not covered under these two categories, 
from the date the building is actually occupied--!/ the building is one to which 
E sewerage connection can be granted, and in fact granted on 24.2.1973, the 
period of 5 years' exemption has to be computed from that date-However, 
Notification dated 31.1.1973 applies only to those buildings which are given 
sewerage connection or electric connection or which are occupied as the case 
may be on or after 31.1.1973 and not to those buildings which satisfy any of 
the said conditions before 31.1.197~-Since electric connection was given to 
F the building, of which the suit premises was part, on a date prior to 3 J.1.1973 
the said exemption notification is not applicable to the suit premises-There-
fore, the Act will apply and civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the 
evictfon suit-The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to grant 
protection to the tenants-There/ ore, exemption notification, which takes out 
G cases from the purview of the Act, should be strictly construed-Hence, the 
decision in Punjab Tin Supply Co. 's case does not require reconsideration. 
The respondent-landlady filed a suit before the civil court for evic-
tion of the appellant-tenant from the suit premises on account of arrears 
of rent/damages. It was the case of the respondent that the building of 
H which the suit premises was a part, was exempted from the provisions of 
246 
.... 
MOHL.._,DHR LAL v. SMT. S.K VERMA 
247 
the East Punjab t:rban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for a period of 5 years ;\ . 
from the date of the sewerage connection which was given to the building 
on 24.2.1973; that the period of exemption had not expired on the date of 
filing of the suit and, therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain 
the suit. On the other hand it was the case of the appellant that since the 
electric connection to the building was given on 3.1.1973 the period of 
exemption from the purview of the Act was to be computed from this date 
and the suit, having been filed after 5 years from that date, was not 
maintainable. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the first appel-
late court set aside the judgment of the trial court, which was confirmed 
by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Notification 
dated 31.1.1973 exempting buildings from the purview of the Act did not 
apply to the suit premises since electric connection was given to it prior to 
31.1.1973 as held in Punjab Tin Supply Co. 's case. 
B 
c 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Notification D 
dated 24.9.1973 issued in partial modification of the Notification dated 
31.1.1973 was applicable to the suit premises and that Punjab Tin Supply 
Co. 's case required reconsideration. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. On a fair reading of the notifications particularly the one 
issued on 24.9.1973 it is clear that where sewerage connection can be given 
E 
to a building the period of exemption is to be counted from the date when 
such connection is granted by the competent authority; where sewerage 
connection cannot be granted, as for instance, in the case of booths the F 
period is to be counted from the date electric connection is first given by the 
competent authority and in a case not covered under these two categories, 
from the date the building is actually occupied. 251-G-H; 252-8] 
1.2. Since the building, of which the suit premises is a part, is not G 
one to which sewerage connection cannot be granted and to which sewerage 
connection was indeed granted on 24.2.1973 the period of 5 years' exemp-
tion should be compu

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