LexSUSHIL KUMAR METHA versus GOBIND RAM BOHRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUSHIL KUMAR METHA v. GOBIND RAM BOHRA NOVEMBER 10, 1989 [RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Haryana Urban Rent Control Act, 1973-Section 13-Controller has exclusive jurisdiction to order eviction Civil Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit for eviction. Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Section II and 47 Order 9, Rule 13-Jurisdiction determination of-Court without jurisdiction passing decree-nullity \and non est-Does not operate as res judicata. The respondent had filed a suit before the Senior Sub Judge, against the appellant for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the shop, let out to him. The suit was decreed ex parte on October 20, 1977. The application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed on January IO, 1979 and was confirmed on appeal on August 7, 1979 and later in revision by the High Court. When the respondent-landlord took out execution proceedings for ejectment of the appellant-tenant, he objected under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure contending that the decree passed by the civil court was a nullity, as the premises in question was governed by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 11of1973. According to him A B c D E the Controller under the Act was the competent authority regarding F claims for ejectment and by necessary implication, the civil Court was divested of jurisdiction to take cognisance and pass a decree for eject- ment. That objection was overruled and further revision to the High Court also failed. Simultaneously the appellant had also filed a writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution which was also dismissed. Hence this appeal by the appellant-tenant by special leave. G Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: Normally a decree passed by a court of competent juris- dicti11n after adjudication on merits of the rights of the parties, operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceedings and binds the parties H 149 150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.K A or the persons claiming right, title or interest from the parties. Its validity should be assailed only in an appeal or revision as tile case may be. In subsequent proceedings, its validity cannot be questioned. [162G] A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercis<' of B jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction. It is a coram non judice. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the court to pass a decre.e which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the C party. [162H; 163AJ (See Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., [1955] 1, SCR 117: Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal & Anr .. AIR 1979 SC 794: Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass, [1969] 2 SCR 432; Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Ors. v. K.L. Bansal, AIR 1970 SC 838; Chandrika D Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiya Lal, [1973] 2 SCC 474; Ledgard v. Bull, [1886] Law Report, 13 AC 134; Bartan v. Fincham, [1921] 2 K.B. Division, 291 at 299; Peachery Property Corporation y. Robinson, ll966] 2 All E.R. 981, 983; Choudari Rama (dead) per L.R. Choudhary Ganapathi v. Qureshi Bee, [1983] 2 Andhra Law Times 133 approved;) E A question relating to jurisdiction of a court or interpretation of provisions of a statute cannot be deemed to have been lin~lly deter- mined by an erroneous decision of a court. Therefore the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a case of decree of nullity. If the court inhe- rently lacks jurisdiction consent cannot confer jurisdiction. Where cer- tain statutory rights in a welfare legislation are created, the doctrine of F waiver also does not apply to a case of decree where the court Inherently lacks jurisdiction. TI63F-G I G (See Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors. v. Dossibai N.B. Jee- jeebhey, [1970] 3 SCR 830; Tarini Charan Bhattacherjee's case I.L.R. 56, Cal. 723). . It is the Controller under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant from a building in the urban area leased out by the landlord. Thereby the civil court inherently lacks juri~diction to entertain the suit and pass a decree of ejectment. ll64AJ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.