Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the East India Corporation Limited and Shree Meenakshi Mills Limited concerning the recovery of possession of a building due to alleged wilful default in rent payment of Rs. 900 per month. The appellant denied the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming to be a co-owner. The Munsif decreed the suit, which was upheld by the appellate courts. However, during the appeal, clause (ii) of section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which exempted buildings with rent exceeding Rs. 400 from the Act, was struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional. The appellant argued that this declaration rendered the civil court's decree null and void. The respondent contended that the decree was not void but merely under an eclipse, awaiting the removal of the statutory bar. The Supreme Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under section 10 of the Act unless specific conditions were met, which were not satisfied in this case. Consequently, the decree was declared a nullity, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court's decrees.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Prohibition of Eviction - Section 10 Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - The civil court's jurisdiction is barred in eviction matters unless the tenant denies the landlord's title or claims permanent tenancy, and the Controller finds such denial bona fide. If these conditions are not met, any decree for eviction is null and void. Held that the civil court acted without jurisdiction, rendering its decree a nullity (Paras 317-319).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decree of the civil court became null and void due to the declaration of constitutional invalidity of a statutory provision under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decrees of the lower courts, and declared the civil court's decree a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil court
- Eviction of tenant
- Constitutional invalidity
- Rent Control Act
- Bona fide denial of title
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 4032 of 1984
Thommen, T.K., Sahai, R.M.
1991 AIR 1094, 1991 SCR (2) 310, 1991 SCC (3) 230, JT 1991 (2) 397, 1991 SCALE (1) 761
U.R. Lalit, S. Srinivasan, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Darshan Singh, Praveen Kumar, Sumit Sen
East India Corporation Ltd.
Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Recovery of possession of a building due to alleged wilful default in rent payment.
Remedy Sought
The respondent sought recovery of possession of the building.
Filing Reason
The respondent alleged that the appellant was in wilful default of rent payment.
Previous Decisions
The suit was decreed by the Munsif and affirmed by the appellate courts.
Issues
Whether the civil court's decree became null and void due to the declaration of constitutional invalidity of a statutory provision.
Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant contended that the decree was null and void due to lack of jurisdiction following the striking down of a statutory provision.
The respondent argued that the decree was not void but merely under an eclipse, awaiting the removal of the statutory bar.
Ratio Decidendi
The civil court's jurisdiction in eviction matters is barred unless specific conditions are met, and any decree passed without jurisdiction is null and void.
Judgment Excerpts
Any suit instituted by a landlord for eviction of a tenant from a building falling within the ambit of the Act, otherwise than as stipulated by the section is, therefore, incompetent for lack of jurisdiction of the court and any decree of the court in such a suit is null and void and of no effect.
The provisions of the Act are clear and complete in regard to the finality of the orders passed by the special tribunals set up under it.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession, decreed by the Munsif, affirmed by the appellate courts, and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: 10, 30
- Constitution of India: Article 14
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 9
