SMT. NOORUNISSA BEGUM versus BRIJ KISHORE SANGH!

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 24-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015]4 S.C.R. 246 
SMT. NOORUNISSA BEGUM 
v. 
BRIJ KISHORE SANGH! 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3467-3468 of2010 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 24, 2015. 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
C 
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) 
Control Act, 1960 - s.32 as amended by Andhra Pradesh 
Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment). 
o Act, 2005 and s.26 -Applicability of s.32(c) (as inserted by 
amendment Act) - Whether prospective or retrospective -
Effectofs.32(c), on GO. No. 636 dated 291h December, 1983 
issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh u/s 26 - Held: 
Partofs.32 i.e. s.32(a) and (c) are prospective while s.32(b) 
E is retrospective in operation-s.26 and the GO. issued under 
the said provision has overriding effect over rest of the 
provisions of the Act- ss. 26 and 32 operate in different fields 
and hence there is no clash between them - Clause (a) of 
the G 0. has become redundant but clause (b) thereof cannot 
F 
be said to have become redundant in view of the amended 
s. 32 -
In the present cases, the cases pending for 
determination under general law would not be affected by 
amended s.32 and would continue to be decided in 
G accordance with general law. 
H 
Rent Control - Eviction of tenant...,.. Remedy - Held: 
Right of landlord to evict tenant by way of suit, exists as long 
as it is not abridged by a special legislation - Suit. 
246 
SMT. NOORUNISSA BEGUM v. BRIJ KISHORE 
247 
SANGH I 
Appeal - Whether affected by a new law - Held: Ordinarily A 
appellate court cannot take into account a new law brought 
into existence after the judgment appealed from·has been 
rendered - Rights of litigants in appeal are determined 
applying the law which existed on the date of filing the suit. 
B 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Under common law, the rights of the 
landlord to evict a tenant by way of suit before a civil 
court of competent jurisdiction exist as long as it is not c 
abridged by a special legislation conferring protection 
in favour of the tenant. [Para 21] [266-F] 
1.2 Ordinarily a Court of appeal cannot take into 
account a new law brought into existence after the o 
judgment appealed from has been rendered, because 
rights of the litigants in appeal are determined applying 
the law in force at the date of the suit. [Para 25] [270-D-E] 
1.3 In its original form the Andhra Pradesh Building E 
{Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 protected 
tenants of all buildings, irrespective of rent, except (a) 
the tenants of a building owned by the Government and 
(b) the tenants of a building constructed on or after 26th 
August, 1957. After striking down of Section 32(b) in F 
Motor General Traders case, the tenants of all buildings, 
including any building constructed on or after 26th 
August, 1957 irrespective of rent were protected under 
the Act except the tenants of a building owned by the 
Government. After amendment of Section 32 by the G 
Amendment Act, 2005, w.e.f 271h April, 2005, tenants of a 
building, rent of which is Rs.3,5001- p.m. or below in the 
areas covered by the Municipal Corporations and the 
tenants of a building, rent of which is Rs.2,0001- p.m. or H 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A below in other areas, only remain as protected tenants. 
In effect, the rest of the tenants of any building rent of 
which exceeds Rs.3,500/- p.m. in the area covered by 
the Municipal Corporation and Rs.2,000/- p.m. in other 
areas, no more remain tenant within the meaning of 
B Section 2(ix) of the Act as the Act is not applicable to 
them. Therefore, since, 271h April, 2005 this class of 
tenants of building whose rent exceeds Rs.3,500/- p.m. 
in Municipal Corporation areas and Rs.2,000/-per month 
C in other areas, lost their right of protection under the Act 
in view of amended Section 32(c). This apart the tenants 
of any building constructed or substantially renovated, 
either before or after the commencement of the Act for a · 
period of fifteen years from the date of completion of 
o such construction or substantial renovation, no more 
remain 'tenant' within the meaning of Section 2(ix) of the 
Act and they also lost their right of protection in view of 
the amended Section 32(b). The position with regard to 
the building belonging to the Government remained the 
E same. The tenants of building belonging to the 
Cantonment Board or local authority also lost their rights 
to claim protection in view of amended Section 32(a). 
Thus, 

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