Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 584
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
New Mangalore Port Trust and Another - Appellants
Versus
Clifford D Souza - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1796-1828 of 2024
Decided On : 03-04-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR Mr. Mudit Gupta , AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Rent – Demand notice – Where liability is acknowledged in respect of any property or right, a fresh limitation may be computed from the time when acknowledgment was so signed.
Headnote:
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 18 – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Section 7 – Rent – Demand notice – Where liability is acknowledged in respect of any property or right, a fresh limitation may be computed from the time when acknowledgment was so signed – Respondents were throughout alleging that time had not been come as appeals were pending before Division Bench – This acknowledgement was given in response to demand by lessor (appellant) made well within limitation of 3 years – Lessor as such would be entitled to benefit of extension of limitation taking benefit of Section 18 of Limitation Act – Respondents had been objecting to demand on the ground of pendency of intra-court appeal – There was no denial to pay nor amount was disputed – When intra-court appeals at instance of respondents were pending, High Court ought not to have proceeded with hearing of writ petition – Rather, it should have awaited outcome of pending intra-Court appeals – Respondents ought not to have benefitted out of technical objection raised by them regarding limitations when they were themselves bound by decision of Single Judge – Writ petition of appellants restored to be heard after decision in intra court appeals. (Paras 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Appellants has assailed correctness of judgment and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by High Court of Karnataka dismissing a bunch of writ petitions preferred by NMPT assailing correctness of judgment and order dated 15.03.2017 passed by District Judge allowing appeal of respondents and quashing order of Estate Officer of NMPT raising demand against respondents.
Findings of Court:
Demands would be liable to be withdrawn. However, if respondents fail in their appeals, they would be liable to pay demand in accordance to law along with interest admissible under law.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - Acknowledgment of liability in writing signed by the party starts a fresh limitation period (!) (!) . - Licensees had not denied liability or disputed the amount, only raised limitation based on pending appeals (!) (!) . - High Court should not have proceeded with writ petition when intra-court appeals were pending (!) (!) . - Demand notices issued after limitation expiry were invalid, but acknowledgment of debt can revive limitation period (!) (!) . - Where licensees admitted facts but not liability, benefit of Section 18 Limitation Act may still apply (!) (!) .
How to determine when a fresh limitation period commences for rent recovery from licensees in public premises eviction cases?
What is the effect of an acknowledgment of liability on the limitation period under the Limitation Act in eviction proceedings?
What is the correct procedure when intra-court appeals are pending regarding retrospective tariff revisions in public premises eviction cases?
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The appellants New Mangalore Port Trust1 [NMPT] has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissing a bunch of writ petitions preferred by NMPT assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the District Judge allowing the appeal of the respondents and quashing the order of the Estate Officer of NMPT raising demand against the respondents.
2. The facts in brief relevant for proper adjudication of these appeals are summarised hereunder:
2.1. NMPT allotted land to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as Licensees) for loading and unloading goods subject to payment of licence fee which is to be revised every five years with the approval of Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP).
2.2. Allotment to the respondent for the licensees had been made in the year 2003. By notification dated 20.06.2005 licence fee was revised w.e.f. February, 2002. Thereafter, the next revision was notified on 23.07.2010 approving the revision of licence fee w.e.f. 20.02.2007 again for a period of five years.
2.3. Pursuant to the said revision, demand was raised for realising the arrears of licence fee for the period 20.02.2007 till 23.07.2010 i.e. the date of the notification. Beginning March, 2011, the Assistant Estate Manager/Estate Officer issued demand notice to all the Licensees. The Licensees challenged the notification dated 23.07.2010 before the High Court by way of writ petitions filed in the year 2011-2012 primarily on the ground that it was not permissible to revise the licence fee retrospectively. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 28.06.2013 dismissed the bunch of writ petitions holding that the licence fee could be revised retrospectively and upheld the notification dated 23.07.2010.
2.4. Aggrieved by the same the Licensees preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru. These group of appeals are still pending however without any interim orders.
2.5. After the judgment of the Single Judge dated 28.06.2013, the Assistant Estate Manager issued a demand notice on 15.01.2015, copy whereof is filed as Annexure P-5. It would also be relevant to mention that there are other notices also issued but the notice dated 15.01.2015 is specifically mentioned as there is a reply given to it by the Licensees. The notice dated 15.01.2015 is reproduced hereunder:
“FINAL NOTICE
No. 30/44/2015/EBL.1/TAMP
To
Date: 15.01.2015
M/s Export Trade Link Agencies Lal Bagh
MANGALORE – 575 003
Sir,
Sub: Payment of difference in Licence fee on account of revision of Scale of Rate w.e.f. 20.02.2007
Ref:
(1) TAMP ORDER G NO. 184 dated 23.07.2010.
(2) T.O. letter even No. dtd/07.11.2014
Please refer to the letter cited above, wherein it was requested to remit the difference of licence fee/penal licence fee including Service Tax amounting to Rs. 55,32,234/- on account of revision of SoR w.e.f. 20.02.2007, But you have not remitted the said amount.
Hence you are once again requested to make necessary arrangement for remittance of difference in Licence Fee and Service Tax within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter failing which penal interest @ 13% shall be payable from the due date till the payment is received and action for recovery of dues will be initiated as per law.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
15.01.2015
Asstt. Estate Manager (Gr.I)”
2.6. The Licensees responded to the same vide letter dated 04.02.2015 and objected to the demand raised on the ground that as the issue is still pending before the Division Bench of the High Court, no question arises for the payment of the difference in licence fee for the period 20.02.2007 till 23.07.2010. The same would prejudice their case. The question whether licence fee could have been revised with retrospective effect and recovered was still to be decided by the High Court in the pending writ appeal. It was thus requested that the NMPT may not
