Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

"Supreme Court Grants Relief to Landlord in Eviction Suit, Ruling '38 Years Beyond Limit Would be a Travesty of Justice'"

04 September 2024 10:17 AM

By: Admin


Today , In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted relief to a landlord in an eviction suit that had been ongoing for a staggering 38 years. The Court ruled that requiring the landlord to restart the proceedings due to the initial five-year limitation on filing the suit would be a mockery of justice.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, while delivering the judgment, stated, "We cannot lose sight of the fact that we stare at a factual scenario where the vagaries of litigation have prolonged the suit proceedings for a period of 38 years. To say that the landlord should now, once again, restart the proceedings because the initial period of five years had not elapsed, even as now 38 years have elapsed, would be a travesty of justice."

The dispute arose between the landlord, Mr. Ravi Khandelwal, and the tenant, M/s. Taluka Stores, over the eviction of a shop premises in Jaipur. The suit was initially dismissed by the Trial Court due to a procedural error, but the appellant succeeded in the first appeal before the Additional District Judge. However, the respondent filed a second appeal, raising a question regarding the interpretation of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

The Division Bench of the High Court had endorsed the view that Section 14(3) created a complete prohibition on filing a suit for eviction within five years of the tenancy. However, the Supreme Court, after considering the objective of the provision and the extraordinary delay in the present case, ruled that the passage of time beyond the prescribed period washed away the initial impediment against the suit.

The Court further emphasized that the purpose of Section 14(3) was to protect the tenant for a specific period, and allowing the landlord to file a fresh suit after such a prolonged duration would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, the Court affirmed the decree of eviction passed by the first appellate court, ordering the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the premises.

This judgment serves as a significant precedent, highlighting the need to balance the protection of tenants' rights with the avoidance of undue prolongation of legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: July 11, 2023

RAVI KHANDELWAL vs M/S. TALUKA STORES

Similar News