Summary
Tenants resisted possession decrees because the Rajasthan Rent Control Act was extended to the premises after the suits were filed but before decree. The Court held that Section 18 did not withdraw jurisdiction over previously instituted suits or prohibit their decrees from being executed. The civil court could therefore decide those suits under the law applicable at institution. Both appeals were dismissed and the decrees sustained.
Issues
- Whether extension of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act during pending possession suits deprived the civil court of jurisdiction or made its decrees unexecutable.
Provisions considered
- Sections 1(2) and 18(1), Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001Extension of the Act and the Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction did not displace civil suits validly instituted before its application to the area. (¶¶ 6-9, 28-29)
Held
- The effect of later rent protection depends on the statutory language. The Rajasthan Act contained no express or implied bar against continuing the previously instituted civil suits or executing decrees passed in them. The notification operated from its effective date. (¶¶ 8-9, 28)
- The parties’ rights in these suits fell to be examined as at institution, when the premises were outside the Act. Later extension did not invalidate the civil court’s subsequent decrees. Disputes instituted after the Act became applicable were for the Rent Tribunal. (¶ 28-29)
- Authorities concerning other rent laws had to be read against their differing provisions, including express restrictions concerning decrees or pending proceedings. The Court left its reservations about the Haryana position for an appropriate case and did not decide the separate question concerning the effect of staying the earlier High Court judgment. (¶ 10-27)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; the High Court’s orders and the possession decrees were sustained as valid and executable.