Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) In the Judgment reported in "1990 (1) SCC 193 - Sushil Kumar Metha v. Gopind Ram Bohra", the facts were as follows:

"1....The suit was originally laid in the Court of Sub Judge, IIIrd Class, Gurgaon, which was transferred later to the Sr. Sub Judge, Gurgaon, which was decreed ex-parte on October 20, 1977. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex- parte decree was dismissed on January 10, 1979, and was confirmed on appeal on August 17, 1979 and in revision by the High Court on October 15, 1979. When the landlord laid the execution application for eject- ment the appellant objected under section 47 of C.P.C. contending that the decree of the Civil Court is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Appln.Nos.298 and 299 of 2018 a nullity as the premises in question is governed by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 11 of 1973, for short 'the Act'. The Controller under the Act is the competent forum regarding claims for ejectment on fulfilment of any of the conditions enumerated under Section 13 thereof. The Civil Court is divested of jurisdiction to take cognisance and pass a decree for ejectment of the appellant. That objection was overruled and on further revision the High Court dis- missed the revision by order dated March 19, 1980. Simultaneously he also filed Writ Petition under Article 227 which was dismissed on September 30, 1988. This appeal is directed against that order of dismissal."