Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

Tenant Cannot Take Recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Avoid Eviction: Supreme Court

05 September 2024 5:43 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the application of the Limitation Act in eviction proceedings under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Court observed that tenants cannot resort to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to explain the delay in filing applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Tenancy Act.

"The deposit of rent along with an application for determination of dispute is a precondition to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. In view thereof, the tenant will not be able to take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act," Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed.

The case involves appellants Debasish Paul & ANR., who are landlords, and respondent Amal Boral, who is a tenant. The tenant had failed to pay the rent since February 2005. The landlords filed an eviction suit in 2013, which led to various legal proceedings, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.

The tenant had filed an application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act after a delay of ten months, citing poor legal advice as the reason. The High Court had set aside the trial court’s judgment and allowed the tenant to explain the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's approach, stating that the High Court erred in invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act to give the benefit to the tenant. The Court further noted that if a lesser time period is specified in the Tenancy Act, then the Limitation Act cannot be used to expand the same.

"We have no doubt over the proposition that though generally the Limitation Act is applicable to the provisions of the said Act in view of Section 40 of the said Act, if there is a lesser time period specified as limitation in the said Act, then the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be used to expand the same," the Court concluded.

This judgment serves as a significant guideline for eviction cases and the application of the Limitation Act therein, emphasizing the necessity for tenants to act promptly in legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 18 October 2023 

DEBASISH PAUL & ANR. vs AMAL BORAL

Latest Legal News