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    |    

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

Similar News