ATMA RAM MITTAL versus ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA

ATMA RAM MITTAL versus ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA

The exemption provided by Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 continues to apply to a suit instituted within the ten year period from completion of the building, even if the exemption expires during the pendency of the suit. Rights of parties are determined as on the date of institution, and to require final disposal within ten years would make the exemption illusory and defeat legislative intent.

Parties
Appellant: Atma Ram Mittal; Respondent: Ishwar Singh Punia
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court Decision in Civil Revision No. 2457 of 1985
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rent Control, Eviction, Statutory Interpretation, Jurisdiction
Land Law Tenancy Law Rent Control Eviction Statutory Interpretation Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atma Ram Mittal

Appellant

Ishwar Singh Punia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court Decision in Civil Revision No. 2457 of 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exemption under Section 1(3) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 applies if the period of ten years expires during the pendency of the eviction suit.
  2. 2 Whether civil court retains jurisdiction when the ten year exemption expires during suit pendency.

Ratio Decidendi

The exemption provided by Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 continues to apply to a suit instituted within the ten year period from completion of the building, even if the exemption expires during the pendency of the suit. Rights of parties are determined as on the date of institution, and to require final disposal within ten years would make the exemption illusory and defeat legislative intent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court set aside.
  • Order of the Sub-Judge restored.