Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court

"Act of unauthorised subletting by a tenant constitutes a continuing breach of contract and therefore period of limitation would begin to run so long as the act of subletting continues," Bombay High Court, in a significant judgment, has clarified that unlawful subletting by a tenant constitutes a "continuing wrong" under the Limitation Act, 1963.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that as long as the unauthorised sub-occupancy continues, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment, thereby preventing the suit for eviction from being barred by the 12-year limitation period. The Court observed that "the injury caused to landlords continues" throughout the period of such unauthorised occupation.

The matter arose from an eviction suit filed by M/s. Ish Homes Private Limited, which acquired ownership of 'Kadri Mansion' in Mumbai in 2006. The Plaintiff discovered that Ratnadeep Narkar (the Applicant) was in possession of the suit premises, allegedly inducted as an unlawful sub-tenant by the original tenant, late Ballaram Hullaji. While the Trial Court and the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court ordered eviction on the grounds of subletting, the Applicant challenged these findings before the High Court, primarily arguing that the suit was barred by limitation as he had been in possession since 1995.

The primary question before the Court was whether a suit for eviction based on unlawful subletting is governed by a fixed limitation period of 12 years under Article 66 of the Limitation Act, or if it constitutes a continuing breach under Section 22. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the failure of an Appellate Court to decide on multiple, repetitive applications for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC necessitates a remand of the case.

Subletting As A Continuing Breach Of Contract

The Court delved deep into the nature of "continuing wrongs" as defined under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It noted that unlike a "complete" injury where only the damage continues, subletting is an act that creates a continuing source of injury to the landlord's rights.

Justice Marne observed that the act of unauthorised subletting by a tenant constitutes a continuing breach of contract. Consequently, the period of limitation begins to run so long as the act of subletting continues. The Court held that this is not a case where the wrongful act resulted in an injury that was complete, and only damages followed.

"In a case involving subletting, a continuous cause of action would arise so long as the act of subletting continues."

Distinguishing Article 66 And Fixed Limitation Periods

The Applicant had relied on previous rulings, including Bakul Nandlal Gandhi vs. Smita Pradip Bhatia, to argue that a suit must be filed within 12 years of the act of subletting. However, the High Court distinguished these precedents, noting that they were often decided on peculiar facts or without considering the mandate of Section 22 of the Limitation Act.

The Bench clarified that the ratio in Shree Durga Trading Co. vs. Ateeq Anwar Agboatwal is the correct position of law. It reiterated that the injury arising out of subletting is not complete on the day the sub-tenant is first inducted. Instead, the breach is renewed every day the unauthorised occupant remains on the premises.

"The plea of limitation sought to be raised by the Applicant deserves rejection as the act of subletting constitutes a continuous cause of action."

Abuse Of Process Through Multiple Procedural Applications

A major portion of the judgment addressed the Applicant's conduct in filing five separate applications before the Appellate Court, including three for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. The Applicant argued for a remand because two of these applications remained undecided.

The Court strongly condemned this tactic, describing it as "swamping" the court with numerous applications to delay proceedings. Justice Marne held that the production of additional evidence is an exceptional opportunity and cannot be resorted to routinely. He noted that if a party believes vital evidence is missing, they must produce all such material in a single application rather than filing multiple ones at different intervals.

"The Applicant abused the process of law by filing as many as four Applications for leading of additional evidence... creating a hindrance in the interest of justice."

Status Of Occupants In Conveyance Deeds

The Applicant further argued that his name appeared in the list of "tenants" appended to the Deeds of Conveyance when the Plaintiff purchased the property. The Court rejected this, pointing out that such lists often include both "tenants and occupants."

Referring to the Court's previous rulings in Ambavi Raghu Patel, the Bench held that the mere reflection of a name in an Annexure to a Conveyance Deed does not elevate an occupant to the status of a protected tenant. It observed that the status must be independently proved, and the Plaintiff's purchase of a property "as is" does not imply the regularisation of unlawful sub-tenancies.

"Mere reflection of names of the occupants in the lists appended to the Conveyance Deeds does not elevate the occupants to the status of tenants."

The High Court dismissed the Revision Application, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding unlawful subletting. It concluded that the suit, filed 18 years after the alleged induction, was not time-barred due to the continuing nature of the breach. The Court also refused to stay the judgment, noting that the Applicant had already occupied the premises for nearly two decades through prolonged litigation.

Date of Decision: 04 May 2026