Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

"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