LexR. KAPILNATH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus KRISHNA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B R. KAPILNATH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. KRISHNA DECEMBER 13, 2002 [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] Statutory Interpretation : Legislative changes-Impact of on pending proceedings-Held: A new C law bringing about a change in forum does not affect pending proceedings, unless a provision is made in it for change over of proceedings or there is some other clear indication that pending. actions are affected-On facts amendment in the Act not bringing about change in forum with regard to pending actions, thus the effect of amendment cannot deprive the Court of D Muns if of itsjurisdiction to try eviction matter over the premises belonging to religious institution-Karna/aka Rent Control Act, 1961-Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1994. Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: E Sections 21 (l)(b) and 3(h)-Pujari of a temple receiving rent in respect of the premises is landlord within the meaning of section 3(h)-Pujari also claiming to be the owner-Claim for eviction-Maintainability of-Held, though pujari claiming to be owner but so long as he is found to be landlord he is entitled to maintain action for eviction. F Words and Phrases: 'Landlord'-Meaning of in the context of Section 3(h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Constitution of India, 1950: G Article 136-0bjection as to forum competence of trial court-Not taken upto High Court, not in SLP too-Cannot be allowed to be urged belatedly by way of additional ground in Supreme Court. Suit premises, a residential house were owned by a temple-a religious institution. It was not under the management of the State If 66 ' ..... t R. KAPILNA TH v. KRISHNA 67 Government and was let out to appellant-tenant. Appellant-tenant paid A rent to respondent's father who was the pujari and manager of the temple. Respondent claiming to be the owner of the premises filed eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Court of Munsif granted eviction decree under clause (p) but not under clause (h). Appellant filed a Revision Petition before Additional District B Judge. During pendency of the proceedings the Act was amended. From section 2(7) which excepted one of the categories of premises from the application of the Act viz, 'any premises belonging to a religious or charitable institution under the management of the State Government', the words 'under the management of the State Government' were deleted. ADJ dismissed the Revision Petition. Even High Court upheld the eviction C decree under clause (p). Hence the present appeal. Appellant-tenant contended that the effect of the amendment deprived the Court of Munsif of its jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings for eviction over the premises; and that the petitioner filing eviction petition must claim himself to be only a landlord and not an owner D and the respondent claimed himself to be the owner of the premises which is inconsistent with his being a mere rent collector on behalf of the temple, thus the claim for eviction at his instance should have been refused. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. A new law bringing about a change in forum does not affect pending actions, unless. a provision is made in it for change over of proceedings or there is some other clear indication that pending actions are affected. (70-F( E 1.2. In the instant case, the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 did F not bring about a change in forum so far as the pending actions are concerned. By the time the amendment came into force, the proceedings before the Court of Munsif had already stood concluded and the case was pending at the stage of revision before Additional District Judge. The amendment Act of 1994 was not given retrospective operation and there G was nothing in the Act to infer restrospectivity by necessary implication. Further an objection laying challenge to forum's competence was not raised before the Additional District Judge nor before High Court. It was neither taken as a ground in the special leave petition. It was taken only by way of a separate petition filed subsequently, seeking leave to urge additional grounds. Such an objection cannot be allowed to be urged so H 1 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A belatedly. (70-G; 71-AI Principles of Stallltory Interpretation by Jusiice G. P. Singh, 8th Edition, 2001, p.442, referred to. 2. A petition for recovery of possession of any premises can b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.