In CMPMO No. 30 of 2023-HP HC- No provision exists under HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, which excludes jurisdiction of Civil Courts with regard to those suits which stood validly instituted before Act was made applicable: Himachal Pradesh HC 
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel [19-04-2023]

Read Order:Piyush Mehta Vs. Vikas Babu And Ors 

Tulip Kanth

Shimla, April 21, 2023: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the Trial Court whereby it was held that there was no provision in the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of the pending suits.

“...at the time when the civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs, the suit land admittedly was not falling within the area under the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, and the subsequent inclusion thereof under the jurisdiction of the Act would not render the suit as non est”, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held.

The Respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the petitioner/defendant as also for recovery of arrears and recovery of damages, which was still pending adjudication. The suit land is situated in Una District of Himachal Pradesh. 

During the pendency of this suit, in terms of a notification issued by the State Government, the area, where the suit land is situated, was brought under the purview of the Rent Control Act. 

This led to the defendant filing of an application under Order 7, Rule 10 and 11-D of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that as the suit premises stood declared to have been situated in urban area by the Government of Himachal Pradesh andthe provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, had become applicable, therefore, the suit was liable to be rejected.

The Trial Court dismissed this application by holding that in terms of law laid down by Supreme Court of India in Shankar Lal Nadani vs. Sohanlal Jain and Rajender Bansal and others vs. Bhuru (dead) through Legal Representatives, it stood held that the rights of the parties have to be determined on the date of filing of the case and further there was no provision in the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, excluding the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in respect of the pending suits.

The defendant has filed this petition challenging the Trial Court’s judgment.

The Bench highlighted the admitted fact that at the relevant time, the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, were not applicable in the area where the suit premises was situated.

Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Top Court in Rajender Bansal Case(Supra)  wherein it was held that if under the scheme of the Rent Act, no provision is made excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the pending cases expressly or impliedly, as the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of institution of the suit, therefore, the law applicable on the date of filing of the suit will continue to apply until the suit is disposed of or adjudicated. 

Referring to the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the Bench said, “...there is no provision therein which expressly or impliedly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts with regard to those civil suits which stood validly instituted before 1987 Act was made applicable to the premises in question.”

On this ground, the Court did not find any infirmity with the order that had been passed by the Trial Court because at the time when the civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs, the suit land admittedly was not falling within the area under the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Act, and the subsequent inclusion thereof under the jurisdiction of the Act would not have rendered the suit as non est.

In view of such observations, the present petition was dismissed.