2014 Supreme(Bom) 597

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
The Association of Recognized Agents Regional and State Transport Authority
Versus
The Chief Executive Engineer & Others
Writ Petition No. 9851 of 2013
Decided on: 07-03-2014

Headnote:Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 - Sections 4 and 5 Eviction of tenant. - Eviction sought by Government on ground of default in payment of contractual rent justified. The record of the present proceedings indicate that the petitioners though were granted the premises in question under the agreement dated 18.6.1957, the petitioners however on various occasions had defaulted in payment of the rent of Rs. 65/- per month. In fact eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioners in the year 1984 by issuance of eviction notice dated 14.3.1984 which came to be challenged by the petitioners filing a suit before the Bombay City Civil Court and obtaining an injunction.

       The injunction was in operation up to the year 2001 when the suit came to be dismissed for default. The petitioners almost in 2010 adopted proceedings and sought restoration of the suit. Admittedly, neither for the earlier period nor from 2001 till date the petitioners have paid any rent in respect of the premises much less the contractual rent. On a query being made by the Court, as to whether the petitioners had complied their obligation to deposit the rent of Rs. 65/- as agreed by them in the agreement dated 18.6.1965, the counsel for the petitioners could not show any material which would indicate that the petitioners had complied with their obligation under the agreement to make time to time payment of rent. The petitioners cannot have a higher right than the one conferred on them under the agreement dated 18.6.1957. If the petitioner acted in breach of the conditions of the said agreement the government becomes entitled to seek eviction of the petitioners from the said premises as per the provisions of law and such an action cannot be faulted with. The petitioners do not have any other legal right to seek occupation of the premises in perpetuity and that too by acting in breach of the agreement dated 18.6.1957. It therefore cannot be said that there was anything arbitrary much less illegal on the part of the concerned department to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner in these circumstance. A perusal of the record shows that no justifiable reason has been shown by the petitioners which can render the eviction action unjustified or unlawful. The Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court has rightly taken into consideration the entire factual matrix and the inquiry proceedings before the Competent authority and on appropriate consideration of the facts and the legal position has rightly upheld the order of eviction dated 13.4.2012.

       Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 - Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, Articles 52 and 112 Claim for arrears of rent. - Since premises belonging to State Government, hence period of limitation for claiming arrears of rent would be 30 years on part Article 112 of Act. It is clear from the provisions of Article 112 of the Limitation Act that for a suit to be instituted by or on behalf of the State Government the prescribed period of limitation is 30 years. Therefore, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 would be justified in making a claim for arrears so as to fall within the prescribed limitation of 30 years. The petitioners therefore may not be justified in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case in New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram (supra) as the Supreme Court in that case was dealing with an issue falling under section 7 of Public Premises (Eviction) of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1958 in respect of the premises belonging to the New Delhi Municipal Committee and not government premises as in present case so as to attract Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

       Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Application of. - Quasi-Judicial proceedings not attracts provisions of Limitation Act. - The Supreme Court in the case of L.S. Synthetics Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and another, (2004) 11 SCC 456 : 2005 (5) All MR 232 (SC), has also held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings before the quasi judicial tribunal and proceedings before bodies other than Courts. In para 33 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under :

        "33. The provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the proceedings before bodies other than Courts, such as quasi judicial tribunal or even an executive authority. The Act primarily applies to the civil proceedings or some special criminal proceedings. Even in a tribunal, where the Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable, the Limitation Act, 1963 per se may not be applied to the proceedings before it. Even in relation to certain civil proceedings, the Limitation Act may not have any application. As for example, there is no bar of limitation for initiation of a final decree proceedings or to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or for correction of accidental slip or omission in judgments, orders or decrees; the reason being that these powers can be exercised even suo motu by the Court and, thus, no question of any limitation arises."