Tenancy Law | Can't Invoke S.5 Limitation Act Where Statute Prescribes Lesser Time Period For A Particular Purpose: Supreme Court

In the context of tenancy laws, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 ( Extension of prescribed period in certain cases) cannot be used to extend the time limit prescribed, when a lesser time period has been specifically provided under the relevant act for a particular purpose.

In the case at hand, the Court was referring to Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, under which a tenant can file an application for protection against eviction, which specifies that an extension of time for paying arrears of rent may be granted only once and for not more than two months. Section 40 of the Act says that the Limitation Act will apply to proceedings and appeals under the Act.

In this context, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed:

“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.”

In this case, the Respondent was a tenant in a shop in Calcutta and the Appellants were the landlords. The Respondent stopped paying rent from 2005, and ultimately the Appellants filed a suit for eviction, for non-payment of rent. The Respondent filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Tenancy Act, for protection against eviction but these were not within the window of the statutory period. The Trial Court rejected the applications on the ground that they were filed with a delay of 10 months. When this was challenged in the High Court, it directed the Trial Court to dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The only ground taken by the Respondent for the delay was improper legal advice from the advocate handling the case.

“We are of the view that a combined reading of the two statutes would suggest that while the Limitation Act may be generally applicable to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, the restricted proviso under Section 7 of the said Act, providing a time period beyond which no extension can be granted, has to be applicable,” the Court said.

The Court also observed that in a dispute regarding tenancy, where there is no dispute on the admitted amount of rent, all arears of rent need to be deposited.

“There is also a larger context in this behalf as the Tenancy Acts provide for certain protections to the tenants beyond the contractual rights. Thus, the provisions must be strictly adhered to. The proceedings initiated on account of non-payment of rent have to be dealt with in that manner as a tenant cannot occupy the premises and then not pay for it. This is so even if there is a dispute about the rent. The tenant is, thus, required to deposit all arrears of rent where there is no dispute on the admitted amount of rent and even in case of a dispute. The needful has to be done within the time stipulated and actually should accompany the application filed under Sub-Sections (1) & (2) of Section 7 of the said Act. The proviso only gives liberty to extend the time once by period not exceeding two months,” the Court said.

The Court observed that in this case, there was no dispute on the default of the respondent in payment of the rent. The respondent neither paid the rent, nor deposited the rent by moving the application nor deposited it within the extended time as stipulated in the proviso, the Court concluded. The Court did not find favour with the reasoning of the Respondent that improper legal advice led to not paying arrears on time:

“The respondent neither paid the rent, nor deposited the rent by moving the application nor deposited it within the extended time as stipulated in the proviso. The mere allegation of absence of correct legal advice cannot come to the aid of the respondent as if such a plea was to be accepted it would give a complete license to a tenant to occupy premises without payment of rent and then claim that he was not correctly advised. If the tenant engages an advocate and abides by his advice, then the legal consequences of not doing what is required to be done, must flow,” the Court said. 

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order, while restoring the Trial Court order. The Court also allowed costs with respect to the appellants.

Case Title: Debasish Paul & Anr V. Amal Boral, Civil Appeal No.6565 Of 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919

Click here to read/download judgment