LexSHANKARLAL NADANI versus SOHANLAL JAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 841 SHANKARLAL NADANI v. SOHANLAL JAIN (Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2022) APRIL 12, 2022 [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Suit for Possession – Rent Tribunal’s Jurisdiction after the applicability of Act – Validity of decree passed by the Civil Court – The appellant’s father was the tenant of the shop since 1982, whose owner was the father of the respondent – After the death of the appellant’s father, the shop was continuing for monthly tenancy of the appellant – The premises in question was not in the urban area when the suit for possession was filed on 18.04.2013 – During the pendency of the suit, the State Government issued a notification extending the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2015 – The Civil Court passed the decree for possession on 28.05.2015 against the appellants even though the Act became applicable to the area in question w.e.f. 11.5.2015 – The High Court on appeal being filed, held that the decree in civil suit could be passed after the applicability of the Act to the area in question and dismissed the appeal – On appeal, held: The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed – After the applicability of the Act to the area in question, the landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only before the Rent Tribunal but not before the civil court – However, a suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court – A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question – The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit – One of the principles is that the rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences i.e., on the date of filing of the suit – The plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day when he initiated the proceedings, therefore, rights of the parties have to be examined as [2022] 13 S.C.R. 841 841 A B C D E F G H 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. on the said day – No error in the order passed by the High Court – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sec. 106. Ramesh Chandra v. III Additional District Judge & Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 751 : [1992] 1 SCR 349; Shri Kishan & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 710 : [1998] 1 SCR 830 ; Mansoor Khan v. Motiram Harebhan Kharat & Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 462 : [2002] 2 SCR 594 - relied on. K. Ramnarayan Khandelwal v. Shri Pukhraj Banthiya 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4178; Om Prakash Gupta v. DIG Vijendrapal Gupta (1982) 2 SCC 61 : [1982] 3 SCR 491; Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera (1984) 3 SCC 352:[1984] 2 SCR 333; Nand Kishore Marwah & Ors. v. Samundri Devi (1987) 4 SCC 382 : [1988] 1 SCR 158; Mani Subrat Jain v. Raja Ram Vohra (1980) 1 SCC 1 : [1980] 2 SCR 141; Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 528; Rajender Bansal & Ors. v. Bhuru (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 202 : [2016] 9 SCR 800; Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1 : [1992] 2 SCR 999 ; Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik & Anr. v. Shantibai Ramchandra Ghatge & Ors. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 627: [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 1 ; Dilip v. Mohd. Azizul Haq & Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 607 : [2000] 2 SCR 280; Subhash Chander & Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 98; ECGC Limited v. Mokul Shriram EPC JV21 2022 SCC OnLine SC 184; Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry & Ors. AIR 1957 SC 540 : [1957] 0 SCR 488; Vitthalbhai Naranbhai Patel v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Nagpur AIR 967 SC 344; Hardeodas Jagannath v. The State of Assam AIR 1970 SC 724 : [1969] 2 SCR 261 - referred to. Case Law Reference [1982] 3 SCR 491 referred to Para 11 A B C D E F G H 843 [1984] 2 SCR 333 referred to Para 11 [1988] 1 SCR 158 referred to Para 12 [1992] 1 SCR 349 relied on Para 13 [1980] 2 SCR 141 referred to Para 14 [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 528 referred to Para 16 [1998] 1 SCR 830 relied on Para 17 [2002] 2 SCR 594 relied on Para 19 [2016] 9 SCR 800 referred to Para 20 [1992] 2 SCR 999 referred to Para 22 [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 23
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.