Limitation issues in landlord-tenant disputes can involve mixed questions of law and fact, precluding outright dismissal during preliminary proceedings.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Ms. Soni Ojha Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee ….. advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta Ms. Shebatee Datta Ms. Moumita Dhar Ms. Madhumita Debnath Ms. Poulami Roy …… advocates Reserved on : 06.05.2025 Judgment on : 04.07.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 186 of 2019.

2. By the order impugned the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner herein stood rejected.

3. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the instant suit proceeds on the basis that the suit property was let out to the defendant company by a registered deed of lease for a period of 21 years. The said lease stood expired by efflux of time and the instant suit has been filed after a lapse of more than 24 years from the date of expiry of lease. Mr. Banerjee contended that the period of limitation for filing the said suit would be governed by Article 67 of the Limitation Act which prescribes a period of limitation of 12 years from the date of determination of tenancy. He further submitted that the allegation in the plaint that on 25.03.2019 the defendant company through its employees, men and masons were trying to change the nature and character of the suit property was made only to create an illusion of the cause of action. Mr. Banerjee contended that it would appear from the statements made in the plaint that the suit is barred by law and the question of limitation in the case on hand is not a mixed question of law and fact as the date of determination of the tenancy and the filing of the suit are not in dispute.

4. Mr. Gupta learned advocate appearing for the opposite party seriously disputed the contentions raised by Mr. Banerjee. He contended that the cause of action for filing the instant suit arose on and from 25.03.2019 and, therefore, the instant suit cannot be said to be ex facie barred by limitation. He contended that since it has been asserted in the plaint that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fact that the defendants were trying to change the nature and character of the suit property, the issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation is a triable issue and for such reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure . In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhotanben and another vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and others reported at (2018) 6 SCC 422. Mr. Gupta contended that in terms of Section 108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act a lessee continues to be liable to the lessor till possession has been actually restored to the lessor. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Ram (Dead) through legal representatives and others vs. Jagdish Prasad (Dead) through legal representatives reported at (2020) 9 SCC

393

5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

6. The opposite party herein filed Title Suit No. 186 of 2019 praying for a decree of recovery of possession, damages and for permanent injunction. It has been stated in the plaint th