Exclusive rent control jurisdiction bars civil eviction decrees without statutory precondition; specific performance claim also remained rejected.

Where a rent control statute creates an exclusive forum for eviction based on denial of the landlord's title, a civil court cannot decree eviction or mesne profits unless the statutory precondition for approaching that forum is satisfied; a decree passed in breach of that bar is a nullity and cannot be saved by waiver or estoppel. The Court set aside the counter-claim decree for want of jurisdiction. It also upheld the dismissal of the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell, because the concurrent findings against that claim disclosed no ground for interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decree the counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits based on denial of the landlord's title in view of the rent control statute; (ii) Whether the dismissal of the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decree the counter-claim for eviction and mesne profits based on denial of the landlord's title in view of the rent control statute.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed eviction of a tenant, including on the ground of denial of the landlord's title, within the exclusive forum created by the rent control law. The proviso to Section 10(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 permits civil court jurisdiction only after the Controller records the requisite finding on the tenant's bona fides. The pleadings did not show compliance with that statutory precondition, and no proper foundation was laid for forfeiture or termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act. A decree passed without subject-matter jurisdiction is a nullity, and neither waiver nor estoppel can confer jurisdiction where the statute bars it.

Conclusion: The civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim, and that part of the decree was set aside in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal of the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell called for interference.

Analysis: The finding on the claim for specific performance was concurrent before the courts below, and no sufficient ground was shown to dislodge that finding. The Court declined to interfere with the rejection of the claim.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit for specific performance was upheld against the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the counter-claim, while the refusal of specific performance remained undisturbed, leaving the parties with a partial appellate success for the Appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates an exclusive forum for eviction on the ground of denial of tenancy or landlord's title, a civil court cannot assume jurisdiction to grant eviction unless the statutory condition precedent for recourse to that court is satisfied, and a decree passed in disregard of that bar is void.

---