RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS. versus BHURU (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 18-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 800 
RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS. 
v. 
BHURU (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8194 of2016) 
OCTOBER 18,2016 
[A.K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 -
Applicability of to suit pending before civil court w.r.t area which 
came within the sweep of rent legislation during pendency of the 
suit - Whether after the applicability of the Rent Act to. the premises 
in question, the Civil Judge ceases to have jurisdiction - Held: 
Rights of the parties get crystallised on the date of the institution of 
the suit - If during the pendency of the suit, Rent Act beco111es 
applicable it would not take away the jurisdiction of civil court - In 
D 
order to oust the jurisdiction of civil court there must be a specific 
provision in the Act taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court -
Under the sche111e of the Rent Act, 1973, no protection provided to 
the ex-tenants and no provision 111ade for excluding the jurisdiction 
of civil courts in respect of pending cases, expressly or impliedly -
E 
F 
Further, on facts, wherein the appellants-landlords had filed suit 
after ter111inating the tenancy, the respondents-tenants had not onZv 
sublet the premises but had also not paid rent for 14 years - It il'ill 
be travesty of justice if the appellants/landlords are deprived of the 
fruits of the decree passed in their favour - Decree passed by trial 
court restored - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. l 06 -
Rent 
Control and Eviction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. From At111a Ram Mittal, Vineet Kumar, Ram Saroop 
Rai, Rameslt Chandra and Shri Kislum alias Krishna K11111ar cases, 
the apparent principles which can be culled out, forming the ratio 
G decidemli of those cases, are as under: 
H 
i) Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the elate of 
the institution of the suit and, therefore, the law applicable on 
the date of filing of the suit will continue to apply until suit is 
disposed of or adjudicated. 
800 
RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS. v. BHURU (D) THR. LRS. & 
ORS. 
ii) If during the pendency of the suit, Rent Act becomes 
applicable to the premises in question, that would be of no 
consequence and it would not take away the jurisdiction of civil 
court to dispose of a suit validly instituted. 
iii) In order to oust the jurisdiction of civil court, there 
must be a specific provision in the Act taking away the jurisdiction 
of the civil court in respect of those cases also which were validly 
instituted before the date when. protection of Rent Act became 
available in respect of the said area/premises/tenancy. 
iv) In case aforesaid position is not accepted and the 
protection of the Rent Act is extended even in respect of suit 
validly instituted prior in point of time when there was no such 
protection under the Act, it will have the consequence of making 
the decree, that is obtained prior to the Rent Act becoming 
applicable to the said area/premises, inexecutable after the 
application of these Rent Act in respect of such premises. This 
would not be in consonance with the legislative intent. [Para 
16][814-G-H; 815-A-E] 
2. Applying the principles laid down above to the instant 
case, it is found that this case would fall in the category of Atma 
Ram Mittal and Mansoor Khan etc. as under the scheme of the 
Haryana Rent Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, 
no protection to the ex-tenants is provided and no provision is 
made excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of pending 
cases, expressly or impliedly. On the other hand, in the facts of 
the present case, the respondents had not only sublet the 
premises but had not paid rent for a period of 14 years. His 
defence was struck off by the civil court and ultill1ately suit was 
even decreed. It is only during the pendency of the appeal that 
the notification was issued covering the area where suit premises 
are situate under the Rent Act. It will be travesty of justice if the 
appellants/landlords are deprived of the fruits of the said decree. 
[Para 21][817-E-G] 
· 
Ramesh Chandra v. Ill Addi. Distt. Judge & Ors. (1992) 
1 SCC 751 : 1992 (1) SCR 349; Mansoor Khan v. 
Moti Ram & Am: (2002) ~. SCC 462 : 2002 (2) SCR 
594; Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishll'ar Singh Puniab (1988) 4 
801 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F-
G 
H 
802 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
SCC 284 : 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 528; Vineet Kumar 
v. Mangat Sain Wadhera (1984) 3 SCC 352 : 1984 (2) 
SCR 333; Ra

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