Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published On: January 31, 2022 at 15:25 IST
The Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Courts Jurisdiction are excluded from the landlord – tenant disputes which are specifically rendered under the Provisions of State Rent Acts, which confuses with their overriding effect over other laws.
The Supreme Court held this ruling while detailing the interplay of the Acts that is Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 and the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.
The Supreme Court recapitulated the fact that if a property falls under the purview of the State Rent Act, even if the duration of contractual tenancy is expired as per the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a tenant will be evicted only in terms of provisions of the mentioned Rent Act.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka quashed the Appeal challenging the Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court and endorsed the said Judgement which opined that the Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and the Petition of possession filed by the Appellants should be filed before the Rent Controller under the State Rent Act.
The subject property was leased out to the Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distributing Company Ltd for the period of 20 years as per the Lease Deed dated on 4 June 1958.
As per the conditions of the Lease Deed it can be renewed again for further 20 years.
However, before the expiry of the Lease Deed, the Central Government imposed the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation took over the lease rights. Then the Lease finally expired on 01 April 1998.
On 30 January 1998, the Appellant sent a Legal Notice to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation to terminate the Lease Deed. In response to which, the later filed a suit on the basis that their predecessor interest was in the ownership of the mentioned property as they were in requirement for their business expansion.
Sorting the Jurisdiction of Civil Court, Bharat Petroleum asserted that they can be convicted on the grounds of the Haryana (Control of the Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. Later it was also argued by the Appellants that the Bharat Petroleum without their consent had sublet the subject property to the Banarsi Lal and Sons.
The Trial Court ruled that the Bharat Petroleum was in an unauthorised possession of the subject property.
The Court of Appeal as well as the High Court and now the Supreme Court are of the same view that the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred with regard the Case as the subject property was under the governance of the State Rent Act, 1973.