Statutory exemption and civil jurisdiction: a possession decree survives expiry of the rent-control exemption during pendency.

A civil suit for possession filed during a statutory rent-control exemption period remained maintainable after the exemption expired. The Supreme Court held that, where the suit was validly instituted while the building was outside the Act, the parties' rights crystallised on the date of filing and the civil court's jurisdiction was not withdrawn by later expiry of the ten-year exemption. In the absence of any express provision barring execution, a decree passed in such proceedings was not rendered a nullity and could be executed notwithstanding the intervening expiry. The Court rejected the tenant's attempt to defeat the claim by delay and followed the consistent later line of authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil suit for possession, validly instituted during the period when the building was exempt from rent control, could be decreed and the decree executed after the expiry of the ten-year exemption period under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

Analysis: The statutory exemption under Section 1(3) protected newly constructed buildings from the Act for ten years from completion. The Court found no provision in the Act withdrawing the civil court's jurisdiction to decide a suit validly instituted during that exemption period, nor any express bar against execution of a decree passed in such a suit. Section 13(1), which restricts eviction except in accordance with that section, was held not to refer to or nullify decrees already passed in civil proceedings. The Court treated the landlord's right as crystallised on the date of institution of the suit and held that allowing the tenant to defeat the suit merely by prolonging litigation would frustrate the statutory purpose of encouraging new construction. Earlier authorities were reviewed and the later consistent line of decisions was followed, while the contrary view was not accepted.

Conclusion: The civil court retained jurisdiction, and the expiry of the exemption period during pendency of the suit did not render the decree a nullity or prevent its execution.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the decrees for possession were allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suit is validly instituted during a statutory exemption period, the parties' rights crystallise on the date of institution, and in the absence of an express legislative provision to the contrary, the expiry of the exemption during pendency does not divest the civil court of jurisdiction or invalidate execution of the decree.

---