Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting 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

Latest Legal News