TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (8) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e shop situated at Raj Guru Market which had been rented out to the respondent in 1978. The suit was filed on the basis that the respondent was in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1982 to 3lst May, 1982 and the tenancy of the respondent had been terminated by giving him notice. The suit was filed for recovery of possession on the termination or expiry of the period of tenancy. It was filed because of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Act was passed with the object to control the increase of rent of certain buildings and rented land situated within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom. For our present purpose, it would suffice if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent preferred a revision to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court held that as the suit had not been decreed within the period of ten years, the building in question came within the operation of the Act and as such the Rent Act was applicable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. In the premises, the learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the suit pending before the Sub-Judge. Aggrieved thereby the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court. 5. More or less identical provisions of the U. P. Act had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Vineet Kumar v. Manal Sain Wadhera, [l984] 3 S.C.C. 352. The only point that was urged before this Court in that decision was whether the premises which wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f rent. The tenant had resisted the claim on the ground that having regard to the date of construction of the building, it was covered' by the Act, that the plaint having not been amended so as to bring the suit under the Act, it was barred by section 20 and that term was no default in payment of rent. As mentioned hereinbefore, during the pendency of the litigation the exemption granted under section 2[2] expired. The question was whether the premises which was not ten years' old on the date of the suit and was exempted from the operation of the Rent Act, would be governed by it if ten years expired during˜, the pendency of the litigation. Allowing the appeal, this Court held that the appellant must get benefits of the Act which beca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act and the period of 10 years elapses during the pendency of the eviction suit or appeal before this Court (which is the continuation of the suit), then the tenant would be entitled to the benefits of the Act. This Court further held that within 10 years as provided for in section 2(2) restriction on the institution of suit as provided for in section 20(1) will not be applicable. It was held that during the pendency of the litigation even if 10 years expired the restriction under section 20 will not be attracted as the suit had been instituted within 10 years. It is well-settled that the rights of the parties will have to be determined on the basis of the rights available to them on the date of the suit. This Court pointed out that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the statute to release, from the shackle of legislative restriction, 'new constructions' for a period of ten years. So much so, a landlord who had let out his new building could recover possession with-out impediment if he instituted such proceedings within ten years of completion?' 8. It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of the fault of the Court or delay in the procedure. Broom has stated the maxim "actus curiam neminem gravabit"-an act of Court shall prejudice no, man. Therefore, having regard to the time normally consumed for adjudication, the 10 years exemption or holiday from the application of the Rent Act would become illusory, if the suit has to be filed within that time and be disposed of finally. It is common ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....though we are concerned with seeking of intention, we are rather looking to the meaning of the words that the legislator has used and the true meaning of what words as was said by Lord Reid in Black-Clawson International Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg A G, [1975] Appeal Cases 591 at 613. We are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the language we must find the reason and the spirit of the law. If the immunity from the operation of the Rent Act is made and depended upon the ultimate disposal of the case within the period of exemption of 10 years which is in reality ability, then there would be empty reasons. In our opinion, bearing in mind the well-settled principle that the rights of the parties crystallise on the date of....