Shankarlal Nadani vs. Sohanlal Jain
Background
The appellant's late father had rented a shop since 1982; after his death the appellant continued as a monthly tenant. The landlord filed a suit for possession in 2013 (after the area was still outside any rent-control law), and the civil court decreed possession in 2015, but by then the State had notified the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 as applicable to that area with effect from 11 May 2015, just days before the decree. The tenant argued that, once the Rent Act applied, only the specially-created Rent Tribunal (not the ordinary civil court) had jurisdiction, so the civil court's decree was invalid; both the first appellate court and the Rajasthan High Court rejected this argument.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court surveyed a long line of precedent on similar rent-control statutes and reaffirmed the settled principle that the rights of parties in a suit crystallise on the date the suit is filed, and the law applicable on that date continues to govern the case even if a new Rent Act later comes into force during the litigation. Since the Rajasthan Rent Control Act's ouster-of-jurisdiction clause (Section 18) only bars fresh proceedings before the civil court from the date the Act applies, and contains no express or implied provision invalidating decrees already passed or suits already pending, the civil court retained the power to decide and execute the suit filed before the Act took effect. The Court accordingly found no error in the High Court's decision and dismissed both connected appeals.
Lesson Learnt
When a new rent-control law comes into force during an ongoing eviction lawsuit, it generally does not retroactively strip the civil court of jurisdiction over that suit unless the statute expressly says so: a case's fate is normally governed by the law that existed on the day it was filed.