LexSMT. ISABELLA JOHNSON versus M.A. SUSAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I SMT. ISABELLA JOHNSON V. M.A. SUSAI OCTOBER 9, 1990 [M.H. KANIA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1960: Section 3-Eviction suit-Jurisdiction of Courts-Res judicata and Estoppel-Whether applicable. Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section ] ]-Jurisdiction of Courts -Pure question of law-Res judicata-Applicability of · Evidence, Act, 1872: Section 115-Estoppel-Applicability of in regard to jurisdiction of Courts. A B c The Respondent-landlord filed a suit under the Andhra Pradesh o Rent Control Act for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The appellant-defendant raised a preliminary objection that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the two eviction petitions filed earlier by the appellant, the Respondent took the plea that since the alleged tenancy was hit by Section 3 of the A .P. Rent Control Act, eviction snit was not entertainable by the Rent Controller. E Decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant, the trial Court held that it was not open to the Respondent to take such inconsistent plea regarding jurisdiction; that he cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate and he was estopped from doing so. On appeal hy respon- dent, the decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court. On a second F appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court reversed the trial court's order. Aggrieved by.the decision of the High Court, the appellant prefer- red this appeal, by special leave, contending that the principles of Res Judicata and estoppel were applicable. G Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: .1 •. A court which has no jurisdiction in law cannot be conferred with the jurisdiction by applying principles of res judicata. It is well settled that there can be no estoppel on a pure question of law. [217F] H 213 214 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. Mahtura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. v. Dossibai N.B. A Jeejeebhoy, [1970] 3 SCR 830; Sushi! Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (dead) thro' his Lrs., [199011SCC193; relied on. B c Avtar Singh, and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Anr., [1979] 4 SCC 83; referred to. 2; In the instant case, the question of jurisdiction is a pure ques- tion of law. The High Court was right in its conclusions tllat in molten of jurisdiction to entertain the suit, doctrine of estoppel could not be invoked; and that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as it lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. [216A-B I CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2771 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.1980 of the Andhra D Pradesh High Court in S.A. No. 526 of 1977. Jagdish K. Agarwal (N.P.) for the Appellant. A Sobba Rao for the Respondents .. E The Judgment of the Court was d~livered by ....... KANIA, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 526 of 1977. F As we are, with respect, in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, we pro- pose· to set out only the bare facts essential for the purposes of our judgment. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the G defendant in Suit. O.S. No. 789 of 1973 filed in the Court of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent and for mesne profits till the delivery of possession of the premises. The case of the appellant was that she was the owner of the suit premises and the respondent was in the occupation of the said H premises on payment of Rs.30 per month. The respondent had been I ' SMT. ISABELLA v. M.A. SUSA! [KANIA, J.l 215 irregular in the payment of the said rent and had been a source of perpetual nuisance. It was on this ground that the eviction of the premises was sought by the appellant. In his written state.men! the respondent took a preliminary objection that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the suit fell within the jurisdic- tion of the Rent Controller at Hyderabad. Two petitions had earlier been filed by the appellant before the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent and the Rent Controller had rejected the same on the ground that the purported tenancy of the respondent was hit by section 3 of the A.P. Re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.