TEK CHANDversusSAT NARAYAN
- Citation
- 1989 INSC 277
- Decided
- 14 September 1989
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The exemption under the Act applies for a period of ten years and remains in force until the suit is disposed of or adjudicated, and the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered a Special Leave Petition filed by Tek Chand against Sat Narayan under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The issue was whether the exemption provided in Sections 1(3) and 13 of the Act continues for a fixed period of ten years and remains effective until the suit is finally disposed of or adjudicated. The Court applied the principle laid down in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284, holding that the exemption does indeed operate for ten years and persists until the conclusion of the suit. Consequently, the decree could not be executed before the expiry of the exemption unless an undertaking on usual terms was filed; otherwise, the decree becomes executable immediately. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, thereby upholding the lower court’s order regarding the exemption and execution conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the exemption under Sections 1(3) and 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 continues for ten years and until the suit is disposed or adjudicated.
- Whether the decree can be executed before the expiry of the exemption period without an undertaking on usual terms.
- Whether the principle established in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973s. 1(3), s. 13
Subjects
Judgment
I
TEK CHAND
A
v.
SAT NARAYAN
SEPTEMBER 14, 1989
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, CJ., K.N. SINGH AND B
S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]
Haryana Urban (Control' of Rent & Eviction) Act,. 1973: Sections
I (3) and 13-Applicability of the Act-Fixed period of exemption from
applicability-Exemption continues until suit is disposed of or
adjudicated.
c
Applying the principle enunciated in Alina Ram Mittal v. Jshwar
Singh Punia, [1988] 4 SCC 284, this Court dismissed the special leave
petition, and,
D
HELD: I.I The exemption would apply for a period .of ten
years and will continue to be available until suit is disposed of or
adjudicated. [121H]
1.2 If the petitioner fails to file an undertaking on usual terms,
the decree shallbecome executable forthwith. li2iBY · - E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 5628 of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1988 of the Pun jab and
Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 918 of 1987. F
P .P. Rao and Shakeel Ahmed for the Petitioner.
S.C. Maheshwari, P.K. Chakravarti, Ms. Sandhya Goswami and
V .K. Bhardwaj for the Respondent.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered
We have heard this case arising out of Haryana Urban (Control
of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973. We feel thai this case is fully covered
by the decision of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji & Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Ranganathan in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, H
121
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A [1988] 4 S.C.C. 284. We respectfully agree with the principle enun-
ciated in that decision. The special leave petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.C. Maheshwari states
that the decree will not be executed till 30th April, 1990 subject to an
undertaking on usual terms being filed in this Court within four weeks
Ill from today. If the undertaking is not filed, the decree shall become
executable forthwith.
G.N. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.