TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Jurisdiction clarified for eviction post-amendment of Rent Control Act</h1> <h3>M/s. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. Versus M/s. AMRIT LAL & CO. & ANR.</h3> The court clarified that jurisdiction for eviction proceedings post-amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act lies with the Rent Controller if the petition ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the court post-amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. Whether the landlord and tenant are relegated to common law rights and remedies after the withdrawal of tenant protection.3. Whether eviction grounds under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act constitute a vested right for the landlord.4. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to pending proceedings.Summary:Jurisdiction Post-Amendment:The central issue was determining whether the jurisdiction for eviction proceedings lay with the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act or the ordinary Civil Court after the amendment of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which excluded tenancies with monthly rent exceeding Rs. 3500 from the Act's purview. The court noted that the pending eviction petition was filed before the amendment came into effect.Relegation to Common Law:The court considered whether the landlord and tenant should seek their rights and remedies under common law once tenant protection under the Rent Act is withdrawn. It was concluded that both parties revert to common law rights unless Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is applicable.Vested Right for Landlord:The court examined if the landlord's right to evict a tenant based on illegal subletting under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Act is a vested right. It was held that such grounds do not constitute a vested right but are considered a right and privilege accrued within the meaning of Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act if eviction proceedings are pending.Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act:The court discussed the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to pending proceedings. It was determined that Section 6(c) protects accrued rights and privileges, allowing pending eviction proceedings to continue as if the repealed statute were still in force. The court emphasized that the landlord's right to evict a tenant pending before the Rent Controller is preserved under Section 6(c).Conclusion:1. Landlord and tenant revert to common law rights after the withdrawal of tenant protection, except where Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies.2. Eviction grounds under Section 14(1)(b) do not constitute a vested right but are an accrued right protected under Section 6(c) if proceedings are pending.3. Pending eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller continue unaffected by the amendment due to Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act.4. The landlord must withdraw one of the two parallel proceedings within six weeks.The appeals were dismissed, and costs were imposed on the parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
