Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 | Though Eviction Suit Can't Be Filed Before 5 Years Of Tenancy, Supreme Court Affirms Decree As It Was Passed After 38 Years

The Supreme court bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that the objective of section 14(3) of Rajasthan Rent control Act,1950 was to safeguard the interest of tenants. As per the provision, Eviction suit cannot be filed by landlord within 5 years of tenancy. However, the court opined that even though in this case, the eviction suit was filed within 5 years, 38 years have gone by since then. This itself would cure the defect in the eviction suit.

The Supreme court allowed the appeal by the landlord and set aside the High court judgment.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The respondent is the tenant of a shop situated at Paanch Batti, M1 road, Jaipur with appellant as landlord. The appellant purchased the property in 1985 where respondent was already present as tenant in the premises.

The appellant filed a suit for eviction citing bonafide necessity in 1985 which was dismissed in 2002 since section 14(3) of the Rent control Act barred suits filed within 5 years of tenancy. The trial court noted that premises were leased only in 1982.

An appeal was filed before Additional District judge where the appellant succeeded in 2004 based on the admission of respondent that the shop was initially leased in 1958. Therefore, the suit was filed after 5 years of tenancy which is legally permissible.

Thereafter a second appeal was preferred by respondent before a single judge of the High court which framed a preliminary question of maintainability in 2018.

Legal issue

What if an eviction suit is filed within 5 years of tenancy? Is that barred absolutely? Would a fresh suit need to be filed after expiry of the period?

The first view was that section 14(3) created a complete prohibition on filing of suit within 5 years of tenancy.

Whereas, the 2nd view was that the irregularity of the petition filed within 5 years of tenancy would get cured by decree of eviction made after expiry of such period

Since there were different interpretations of section 14(3) by coordinate benches, this matter was referred to a larger bench of the High court.

The Division bench of the high court via the impugned judgment held that section 14(3) created a complete bar on the suit.

SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT

The Court held that the objective of protection of the tenant for 5 years has been met already since the proceedings went on for 5 years and even beyond it- in this case it went on for 38 years. The tenant was not evicted for the entire 38 years.

The court was of the view that the suit has already been prolonged by 38 years. If we ask the landlord to file a fresh suit- it would defeat the very objective of restriction on filing of suit.

The court observed that it would be a travesty of justice to hold that the landlord should now restart the proceedings.

It agreed with the observation in case B Banerjee vs Smt.Anita Pan (1975) 1 SCC 166  that “the protection is fulfilled with passage of prescribed time period and filing of fresh suit would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

The court took note that in the new statute namely Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001 has came into force which did not create any similar bar.

Supreme Court invoked Art. 142 to put an end to the matter instead of remitting it to single judge in 2nd appeal for decision on merits

The court opined that the real question of law to be determined in the second appeal was already discussed and answered by the supreme court. Therefore instead of remitting the matter back to the single judge in second appeal for deciding the issue based on merits as is done usually, the court affirmed the decree of eviction in 2004 by 1st appellate court, purportedly under Article 142 of Constitution to put an end to the matter and to do absolute justice to parties.

Case title: Ravi Khandelwal v. M/S Taluka stores, SLP(C) No.9434/2020

For petitioners: AOR Anuj Bhandari along with advocate Mrs Disha Bhandari

For respondent: Senior Advocate Mr Sushil Jain, AOR Ms Pratibha Jain along with advocates Mr Puneet Jain, Mrs Christi Jain, Mr Umang Mehta, Mr Yogit Kamat, Ms Shruti Singh, Mr Manan Arora, Ms Akriti Sharma.

Case title: Ravi Khandelwal v. M/S Taluka stores, SLP(C) No.9434/2020

For petitioners: AOR Anuj Bhandari along with advocate Mrs Disha Bhandari

For respondent: Senior Advocate Mr Sushil Jain, AOR Ms Pratibha Jain along with advocates Mr Puneet Jain, Mrs Christi Jain, Mr Umang Mehta, Mr Yogit Kamat, Ms Shruti Singh, Mr Manan Arora, Ms Akriti Sharma.

Click Here To Read/Download Order