SHRI KISHAN @ KRISHAN KUMAR ETC. ETC. versus MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 12-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRJ KJSHAN @ KRISHAN KUMAR ETC. ETC. 
v. 
MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 12, 1998 
B 
[M.M. PUN.CHI, CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Haryan9 Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 : Sections I 
(3) & 13 (/)-Tenanted premises-The Act not to apply to the buildings 
C construction of which completed on or after the commencement of the Act for 
a period of ten years from the date of its completion-Suit for possession filed 
before the end of the ten years moratorium period provided in the Act-Suit 
decreed after the completion of ten years-The tenant in occupation will 
automatically not have the protection afforded by the Act-The decree will 
remain enforceable and the Civil Court will not lose its jurisdiction in the 
D absence of any specific provision in the Act. 
Interpretation of Statutes : Exemption clause-Not be applied 
mechanically-Effect to be given to the object having regard to the language 
used. 
E 
The appellants had been inducted as tenants in two shops in the year 
F 
1997. The respondents in both the cases terminated the tenancies by legal 
notices. The notices, after the expiry of no~ice period, were followed by suits 
for possession. The suits were decreed in the year 1988. First appeals 
preferred by the appellants were dismissed by the Additional District Judge 
in 1989. Second appeals were dismissed by the High Court in limine. Hence 
this appeal. 
The question involved related to debarring of courts below by the 
provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 from 
passing decrees directing the appellants to deliver possession of the 
G properties scheduled in the suits to the respondents. 
It was contended that the Act came into force on April 25, 1973 while 
the decree in the instant cases were passed in 1988. The construction of the 
building in the present cases was completed in 1977; therefore, in view of 
Section I (3) of the Act, the Court lost its jurisdiction as the decrees were 
H passed after the moratorium period of ten years came to an end. 
830' 
KISHAN@ KRISHAN KUMAR v. MANOJ KUMAR 
831 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that as the suit was A 
instituted to enforce a legal right which had already accmed to the plaintiff, 
the court would not lose its jurisdiction in the absence of any specific 
provision in the Act to deprive it of its .iurisdiction. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Com1 
HELD 1. There is no provision in the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent 
& Eviction) Act, 1973 taking away the julisdiction of a civil court to dispose 
of a suit validly instituted. There is also no provision preventing the execution 
of a decree passed in such a suit. Section 13 (1) does not expressly refer 
B 
to execution of a decree for possession. Had the Legislature inter.ded to take 
away the .iurisdiction of the civil court to decided a suit which had been C 
validly instituted, it would have been worded differently. [835-D-E] 
2. The purpose for which the exemption is granted statutorily under 
Section 1 (3) is to encourage constmction of new buildings. That purpose 
would be defeated if the owner of the building is dcplived of his right to get 
..<.... 
possession of the building unless he gets a decree within a period of ten D 
years from the date of its completion. It is common knowledge that a proceeding 
in a civil court for recovery of an immovable 11roperty could be dragged on 
by the defendant easily for a period of ten years more and thereby any tenant 
whose tenancy had been terminated validly before the suit would successfully 
make the proceeding infmctuous by prolonging the litigation. (835-F-H] 
3. When a suit is nlidly im1itutcd am! the right of parties which had 
crystallized on the date of the suit arc determined by a decree in that suit 
the execution thereof cannot be stopped by_ the provisions of Section 13 of 
the Act. [841-C-D] 
E 
Nand Kishore Marwah & Ors. v. Samundri Devi, [1987) 4 SCC 382; f 
Atma Ram Milla/ v. Jshwar Singh Punia, (1988) 4 SCC 284; Kesho Ram & 
Co. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1989) 2 SCR 1005; Suresh Chand v. 
Gu/am Chisti, (1990) 1 SCC 595; Ramesh Chandra v.111 Additional District 
Judge & Ors., [1992) 1 SCC 751; Bhola Nath Varshney v. Mu/k Raj Madan, 
[1995) 2 SCC 127 and Parripati Chandrasekharrao & Sons v. Alapti Jaliah, G 
(1995) 3 sec 709, referred to. 
Vineet Kumar v. Mangat Sain IVadhera, (1984] 3 SCC 353, held 
inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 356of1991

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