1988 (8) TMI 426 - SC - Indian Laws

Tenant rights under Rent Act crystallize at suit institution, exemption period extends till suit disposal.

ATMA RAM MITTAL Versus ISHWAR SINGH PUNlA

The Supreme Court held that the tenant should benefit from the Rent Act if it became applicable during the litigation, emphasizing that rights crystallize ... - Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the application of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and the interpretation of the exemption period of ten years for new buildings under the Act.Application of Section 1(3) of the Act:The appellant-landlord filed a suit for possession based on arrears of rent and termination of tenancy u/s 1(3) of the Act. The respondent-tenant argued that the building was exempted from the Act as it was constructed before the exemption period ended. The Sub-Judge initially dismissed the tenant's application, but the High Court held that as the suit was not decreed within ten years, the Rent Act applied, and the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court referred to a similar case from U.P. and held that the tenant must benefit from the Act if it became applicable during the litigation, emphasizing that rights crystallize at the time of suit institution.Interpretation of Exemption Period:The Court discussed the purpose of the exemption period for new constructions under the Act, emphasizing the need for a purposive interpretation to achieve the legislative intent of encouraging new building operations. It highlighted that the exemption should continue until the suit is disposed of or adjudicated, even if the ten-year period expires during the litigation. The Court set aside the High Court's decision, restoring the Sub-Judge's order and directing the suit to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the law. The costs of the appeal were to be borne by the suit.