Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Rent Control Case — Civil Court Lacked Jurisdiction.

In Favour of Accused
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a suit filed by the landlord for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the tenant, which was decreed ex parte. The tenant's application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed, and subsequent revisions were also unsuccessful. The tenant contended that the decree was a nullity as the premises were governed by the Haryana Urban Rent Control Act, 1973, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the Controller for eviction matters. The Civil Court's jurisdiction was thus ousted. The landlord argued that the tenant had previously raised the jurisdiction issue, and the decree had become final, operating as res judicata. The Supreme Court analyzed the jurisdictional issues and concluded that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage. The Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to pass the decree, which did not bind the tenant and did not operate as res judicata. The appeal was allowed, and the lower courts' decisions were overturned.

Headnote

A) Jurisdiction - Civil Court's Jurisdiction - Lack of Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 9 - The Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment as the matter was governed by the Haryana Urban Rent Control Act, 1973, which exclusively conferred jurisdiction to the Controller. The decree passed by the Civil Court was thus a nullity and could be challenged at any stage, including execution. Held that the decree does not operate as res judicata (Paras 162-164).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Civil Court had inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment of the appellant-tenant and whether the decree passed is a nullity.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment, rendering the decree a nullity. The lower courts' decisions were overturned.

Law Points

  • jurisdiction
  • eviction
  • res judicata
  • nullity
  • Haryana Urban Rent Control Act
  • 1973
  • Code of Civil Procedure
  • 1908
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1989 LawText (SC) (11) 10

Civil Appeal No. 4599 of 1989

1989-11-10

K. Ramaswamy, R. Misra, Rangnath Sawant

1989 SCR Supl. (2) 149, 1990 SCC (1) 193, JT 1989 Supl. 329, 1989 SCALE (2) 1104

S.P. Goel, G.B. Singh, K.K. Mohan, S.M. Ashri

Sushil Kumar Mehta

Gobind Ram Bohra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal regarding eviction and jurisdiction under rent control legislation.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the decree of eviction passed by the Civil Court.

Filing Reason

The appellant contended that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to pass the decree.

Previous Decisions

The ex parte decree was confirmed on appeal and revision, but the appellant argued it was a nullity.

Issues

Whether the Civil Court had inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment Whether the decree passed is a nullity

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the decree was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the decree was final and operated as res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi

A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, including execution. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to cases of nullity.

Judgment Excerpts

A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise of jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the court to pass a decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a suit for ejectment, which was decreed ex parte. The appellant's application to set aside the decree was dismissed, and subsequent revisions were also dismissed, leading to this appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Haryana Urban Rent Control Act, 1973: Section 13
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9, Section 11, Section 47, Order 9, Rule 13
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Promissory Estoppel in Government Recruitment Case. The court ruled that a promise made contrary to law cannot be enforced under the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal by State Government in Bihar Non-Government Primary School Takeover Case, Setting Aside High Court Order That Regularised Untrained Teachers. Untrained Teachers Appointed After 1 January 1971 in Voluntarily Taken Over Aide...