The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, addressed the question of whether the limitation period of five years mentioned in Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 prohibits the filing of an eviction suit itself.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah clarified that the objective of Section 14(3) is to ensure that once a tenant acquires a right, they have the right to continue in the premises for a period of five years, provided they fulfil the terms and conditions of the lease.
Brief Facts:
The case pertained to a tenant who occupied a shop under the appellant, who was the landlord. The appellant had purchased the property from its previous owner, M/s Jaipur Metal Electric Co., on January 30, 1985, while the tenanted premises were already under the respondent's tenancy.
The appellant initially filed a suit for eviction in 1985, citing bonafide necessity. However, the suit was dismissed in 2002 because Section 14(3) of the Rent Control Act barred suits filed within five years of the start of the tenancy. The trial court noted that the premises were leased only in 1982.
The appellant subsequently appealed the decision, and in 2004, the appeal was successful based on the respondent's admission that the shop was initially leased in 1958. As the suit was filed after five years of the tenancy, it was considered legally permissible.
The respondent then filed a second appeal before a single judge of the High Court, which raised a preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the suit in 2018.
Question of Law:
The legal issue in question was whether filing an eviction suit within the five-year limitation period was completely barred, or if the defect in the suit could be cured by obtaining a decree of eviction after the expiry of the said period.
There were differing interpretations of Section 14(3) among coordinate benches, leading to the matter being referred to a larger bench of the High Court.
Observations by the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the objective of protecting the tenant for five years had already been fulfilled through the protracted legal proceedings, which had extended for 38 years in this particular case. The tenant had not been evicted throughout this period.
The Court emphasized that requiring the landlord to file a fresh suit would defeat the purpose of the restriction on filing suits within the limitation period. It stated that it would be a miscarriage of justice to force the landlord to restart the proceedings.
Citing the case of B Banerjee vs Smt. Anita Pan (1975) 1 SCC 166, the Court agreed with the observation that the protection provided to the tenant is fulfilled with the passage of the prescribed time, and filing a fresh suit would only lead to an unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.
The Court also noted that the new statute, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, does not impose a similar limitation.
The decision of the Court:
In exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court chose to put an end to the matter. The Court affirmed the decree of eviction issued by the first appellate court in 2004 to provide absolute justice to the parties involved.
The ruling by the Supreme Court clarifies the interpretation of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and establishes that the limitation period does not bar the institution of an eviction suit in cases where a considerable amount of time has passed since the tenancy began.
Case Name: Ravi Khandelwal v. M/S Taluka Stores
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 561 SC
Case No.: SLP(C) No. 9434 of 2020
Advocates of the Petitioners: AOR Anuj Bhandari and Advocate Mrs Disha Bhandari.
Advocates of the Respondent: Senior Advocate Mr Sushil Jain, AOR Ms Pratibha Jain, Advocates Mr Puneet Jain, Mrs Christi Jain, Mr Umang Mehta, Mr Yogit Kamat, Ms Shruti Singh, Mr Manan Arora, Ms Akriti Sharma.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
