Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 – Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 – ss. 3, 5, 7 and 11 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Suit for possession by the appellant – Maintainability of, before the Rent Controller under the 1973 Act or the jurisdiction of the civil court – Property owned by the predecessor in interest of the appellant, leased out to M/s Burmah Shell Company for 20 years – Renewal option for another 20 years was availed – However, before the expiry of the initial lease period, the Central Government enacted Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 and took over the rights of the lessee and transferred the same to the respondent-government company in exercise of its power under the Act 1976 – After expiry of lease period, notice served on the respondents for terminating the tenancy and thereafter, suit for possession filed by the appellant against the respondent for vacating the suit property – Trial court held that the appellants were entitled for the restoration of possession of the suit land – In appeal thereagainst, it was held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and respondents are in possession of the suit property as statutory tenant and can be evicted from the suit property only under the provisions of the Act 1973 – High Court upheld the same – On appeal, held: By virtue of the statutory enactment of Burmah Shell Act, 1976, the pre-existing tenancy rights held by Burmah Shell with the appellants vested with the Central Government and by virtue of s. 7, the said rights in turn stood vested in the respondents-government company and they statutorily became the tenant of the appellants – Jurisdiction of a civil court is impliedly barred from the field covered specifically by the provisions of the Act 1973 and that being the complete code determining the rights of a tenant/landlord to the exclusion of the other laws – Therefore, no error committed by the High Court in holding that even after the expiry of the lease term of the lease deed, the respondents became a statutory tenant and jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred and could be evicted only under the provisions of the Act 1973.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. By virtue of the statutory enactment of Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976, the pre-existing tenancy rights held by Burmah Shell with the appellants stood transferred and vested with the Central Government and thereafter by operation of Section 7, the said rights in turn stood transposed and vested in the Government Company (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) as the Government Company statutorily became the tenant of the appellants/plaintiffs. [Para 19][117-F-G]
2. Even if the lease period is determined by forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, still the tenant continues to be a tenant that is to say that there is no forfeiture in the eyes of law and the tenant becomes liable to be evicted and the forfeiture comes into play only if he has incurred a liability to be evicted under the State Rent Act and not otherwise and further held that even after the expiry of the period of contractual tenancy, the tenant can be evicted only in terms of provisions of the State Rent Act which is applicable in reference the subject property in question. [Para 20][119-C-E]
3. A perusal of the scheme of the Act 1976 would show that from the appointed day, right, title and interest of Burmah Shell with effect to Section 5(1) stood transferred and vested with the Central Government and by virtue of Section 7(2), the vesting of tenancy rights with the Central Government stood further transposed and vested in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And that became a statutory tenant by virtue of Section 7(3) of the Act. To that extent, Section 11 of the Act has an overriding effect to the provisions of other laws. That being so, the jurisdiction indeed of a civil Court is impliedly barred from the field covered specifically by the provisions of the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and that being the complete code determining the rights of a tenant/landlord to the exclusion of the other laws, there is no error in the view expressed by the High Court in the impugned judgment holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is held to be barred and remedial mechanism for ejectment could be possible only under the provisions of the Act 1973. [Para 21][119-E-H]
4. In the given circumstances, no error was committed by the High Court in arriving to a conclusion that even after the expiry of the lease term of the lease deed, the respondents became a statutory tenant and jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred and could be evicted only under the provisions of the Act 1973. [Para 25][120-F]
Depot Superintendent, H.P. Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Kolhapur Agricultural Market Committee, Kolhapur (2007) 6 SCC 159 : [2007] 7 SCR 1061; Ram Bharosey Lal Gupta (Dead) by LRs and Others v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another (2013) 9 SCC 714 : [2013] 6 SCR 323; Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited v. Rama Chandrashekhar Vaidya and Another (2014) 1 SCC 657 : [2013] 5 SCR 674; V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1979) 4 SCC 214 : [1980] 1 SCR 334; Shyam Lal v. Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass (2016) 7 SCC 572 : [ 2016] 5 SCR 893 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.