2002 JTR(SC) 599
2002 AIR(SC) 2430 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 2663 ; 2002 3 APLJ 13 ; 2002 Supp1 JT 70 ; 2002 2 RCJ 46 ; 2002 4 Scale 432 ; 2002 5 SCC 416 ; 2002 3 SCR 694 ; 2002 1 WLC 442 ; 2002 KHC 1928 ; 2002 4 Supreme 321
2002(4) Supreme 321
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
R.C. Lahoti and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Mahendra Saree Emporium -Appellant
versus
G.V. Srinivasa Murthy -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 1998
Decided on 1-5-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A. Subba Rao and A.T. Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.R. Ramasesh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
As to the non-residential premises exceeding 14 square meters the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 do not apply by virtue of Section 2(3)(a) of that Act, the appeal against eviction under Old Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 stands abated by virtue of Sections 70(2)(c) of New Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Act
Referred
:KARNATAKA RENT ACT : S.70(2)(c), S.2(3)(a)
KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT : S.70(1), S.21, S.70(2)(c), S.70(3)(g)
(A) The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (repealed) and its successor, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, are the primary statutory frameworks governing this eviction appeal. Section 70(1) of the 1999 Act provides for the repeal of the 1961 Act, while Section 70(2)(c) ensures that pending proceedings before the Controller or other authorities under the repealed Act continue under the new Act. However, Section 70(3)(g) and clause (c) of Section 70(2) operate as savings provisions, stipulating that any pending proceedings concerning premises to which the new Act does not apply shall stand abated from the date of commencement. The High Courts decree was pending under the repealed Act, and the applicability of the new Act turned on whether the suit premises fell within its scope.
(B) The core legal principles are that a repeal does not automatically abate pending proceedings unless expressly provided, and that proceedings relating to premises not covered by the new Act must stand abated. The determination of whether the premises fall within the Acts territorial ambit is decisive.
Facts of the case:
The tenant was facing eviction under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for sub-letting. The High Court allowed the landlords claim for recovery of possession. During the appeal, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force. The area of the suit premises used for non-residential purposes exceeded fourteen square meters.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the provisions of the 1999 Act do not apply to the suit premises because the non-residential area exceeded fourteen square meters. Consequently, the appeal stood abated under Section 70(2)(c) of the 1999 Act without any adjudication on the merits.
Issues:
Whether the appeal filed under Article 136 is maintainable after the commencement of the new Act, and whether the proceedings are required to be decided on their merits or abated.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the suit premises are not covered by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the pending appeal does not attract the provisions of the new Act and stands abated as per the savings clause, without entering into the merits of the case.
Result:
The appeal is abated without any adjudication on merits and treated as disposed of.
(A) The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (repealed) and its successor, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, are the primary statutory frameworks governing this eviction appeal. Section 70(1) of the 1999 Act provides for the repeal of the 1961 Act, while Section 70(2)(c) ensures that pending proceedings before the Controller or other authorities under the repealed Act continue under the new Act. However, Section 70(3)(g) and clause (c) of Section 70(2) operate as savings provisions, stipulating that any pending proceedings concerning premises to which the new Act does not apply shall stand abated from the date of commencement. The High Courts decree was pending under the repealed Act, and the applicability of the new Act turned on whether the suit premises fell within its scope.
(B) The core legal principles are that a repeal does not automatically abate pending proceedings unless expressly provided, and that proceedings relating to premises not covered by the new Act must stand abated. The determination of whether the premises fall within the Acts territorial ambit is decisive.
Facts of the case:
The tenant was facing eviction under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for sub-letting. The High Court allowed the landlords claim for recovery of possession. During the appeal, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force. The area of the suit premises used for non-residential purposes exceeded fourteen square meters.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the provisions of the 1999 Act do not apply to the suit premises because the non-residential area exceeded fourteen square meters. Consequently, the appeal stood abated under Section 70(2)(c) of the 1999 Act without any adjudication on the merits.
Issues:
Whether the appeal filed under Article 136 is maintainable after the commencement of the new Act, and whether the proceedings are required to be decided on their merits or abated.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the suit premises are not covered by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the pending appeal does not attract the provisions of the new Act and stands abated as per the savings clause, without entering into the merits of the case.
Result:
The appeal is abated without any adjudication on merits and treated as disposed of.
ORDER
Proceedings for eviction of tenant from the suit premises were initiated under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 before the Court. The High Court has allowed the landlord s claim for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting by the tenant. The decree passed by the High Court has been put in issue by the tenant by filing this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution by special leave. During the pendency of the appeal the Karnataka Rent Ac, 1999 has come into force with effect from 31st December, 2001. Section 70 of the 1999 Act - dealing with repeal and savings provides as under :
"70. Repeal and Savings-(1) The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 32 of 1961) is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal and subject to the provisions of Section 69 -
(a) all proceedings in execution of any decree or order passed under the repealed Act, and pending at the commencement of this Act, in any Court shall be continued and disposed off by such court as if the said enactment had not been repealed :
(b) all cases and proceedings other than those referred to in clause (a) pending at the commencement of this Act before the Controller, Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, Court, District Judge of the High Court or other authority, as the case may be, in respect of the premises to which this Act applies shall be continued and disposed off by such Controller, Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, Court, District Judge or the High Court or other authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(c) all other cases and proceedings pending in respect of premises to which this Act does not apply shall as from the date of commencement of the Act stand abated.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in Section 69 and in sub-section (2) of this section, provisions of Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 (Karnataka Act III of 1899), shall so far as may be applicable in respect of repeal of the said enactment, and Sections 8 and 24 of the said Act shall be applicable as if the said enactment had been repealed and re-enactment by this Act."
2. It is not disputed that the area of the suit premises used for non-residential purposes exceeds fourteen square meters. Hence looking to the provisions of clause (g) of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the 1999 Act, the provisions of the 1999 Act do not apply to the suit premises and, therefore, by virtue of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the 1999 Act these proceedings shall stand abated.
3. That being the position of law this appeal cannot be decided on merits and stands abated without any adjudication on merits. It be treated as disposed of.
(N.K.R.) Appeal stands abated without any adjudication on merits.
**************