1. Eviction suit for bona fide necessity — Bar on filing suit within five years of tenancy under Section 14(3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 626
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Ravi Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Taluka Stores – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4364 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 9434 of 2020
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction of tenant – Spirit of protection is fulfilled with passage of prescribed time period and filing of a fresh suit would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation.
Eviction of tenant – Spirit of protection is fulfilled with passage of prescribed time period and filing of a fresh suit would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation.
Subject
Civil Law - Landlord and Tenant
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Eviction of tenant – Bonafide requirement of landlord (Appellant) – Suit may have been defectively instituted within five years of tenancy, more than 38 years have now elapsed since suit was filed – This passage of time beyond period of five years would wash away initial impediment against suit – Spirit of protection is fulfilled with passage of prescribed time period and filing of a fresh suit would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation – Second appeal is on a question of law – A preliminary issue was framed which was opined in favour of respondent and this has now been reversed – Quietus should be put to this prolonged dispute spanning 38 years – Supreme Court is armed with extraordinary power under Article 142 to do absolute justice inter se parties – Decree of eviction passed by first appellate court affirmed. [Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 – Section 14(3)](Paras 15, 16, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Appellant filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide necessity before the Additional Civil Judge-I, Jaipur, on 21.05.1985. The suit was dismissed on 30.10.2002, on a finding that plaint was not laid in accordance with Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.
Findings of Court:
Decree of eviction passed by the first appellate court dated 18.3.2004 should be affirmed and respondent be asked to hand over vacant and physical possession of the tenanted premises on or before 30.09.2023, and to call upon the respondent to file an undertaking in order to avail of the benefit for further occupation till 30.9.2023 within two weeks.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 14(3) creates an absolute bar on filing the suit or if a premature suit is cured after the expiry of the five-year period. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. The five-year bar aims to protect tenants; prolonged litigation exceeding this period fulfills the protection's spirit, rendering a fresh suit unnecessary and unjust. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. A statutory restriction on filing a suit within a specific period is cured if the proceedings continue beyond that period, satisfying the legislative objective of protection. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Eviction decree affirmed — Possession ordered to be delivered. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. Does the five-year bar under Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises Act prohibit the filing of the suit or only the passing of the decree?
The court held that while the provision creates an initial impediment to the institution and trial of the suit, this bar is cured by the passage of the prescribed time period during the pendency of the proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. What is the objective of the restriction on eviction suits for commercial premises under Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises Act?
The objective is to protect the tenant by ensuring they have a right to continue in the premises for a period of five years from the date of tenancy, subject to lease terms. (Para 15 , 18 )
8. Would requiring a landlord to file a fresh suit after the expiry of a statutory bar during prolonged litigation be legally sound?
No, the court observed that requiring a fresh suit after the protection period has already elapsed during the pendency of the original suit would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and a travesty of justice. (Para 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Leave granted.
Procedural History:
2. The respondent is the tenant of a shop situated at Plot E-2, Kamani Mansion, Paanch Batti, MI Road, Jaipur, with the appellant as the landlord. The appellant purchased the property from its erstwhile owner, M/s Jaipur Metal Electric Co. on 30.01.1985. At the time, the tenanted premises were already under the tenancy of the respondent.
3. The appellant filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide necessity before the Additional Civil Judge-I, Jaipur, on 21.05.1985. The suit was dismissed on 30.10.2002, inter-alia, on a finding that the plaint was not laid in accordance with Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) which proscribed the filing of a suit for eviction within five years from the date on which the premises were let out to the tenant. The Trial Court found that the premises were leased only on 08.06.1982 by the predecessor in interest of the appellant.
4. The appellant thereafter succeeded in the first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur, in terms of the judgment dated 18.03.2004. This was based on a stated admission of the respondent that he had initially leased the shop from one Udai Lal in 1958 and, thus, the suit could not be said to be hit by the restriction under Section 14(3) of the said Act. The Court disagreed with the respondent’s claim that the premises had been leased on 08.06.1982, finding that the original lease deed dated 08.06.1982 had not even been adduced before the trial court.
5. On the second appeal being preferred by the respondent, learned Single Judge of the High Court framed a preliminary question of maintainability on 04.10.2018.1 [Although Section 22 of the Act proscribes the filing of a second appeal from a decree, it does not prohibit second appeals from suits for eviction filed before an ordinary court of competent jurisdiction. This was elaborated in Gyan Chand vs. Kunjbeharilal and Others, (1977) 3 SCC 317]. This was on account of what was stated to be conflicting views on the interpretation of Section 14(3) of the said Act by Coordinate Benches of the High Court. Thus, the Single Judge referred the matter to a Larger Bench. The question of law framed was as under:
“Whether the limitation of five years specified in Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 bars the institution of the suit itself or whether it has only the consideration of the suit and passing of a decree therein?” (sic)
6. The aforesaid question of law is answered by the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2020. The Division Bench of the High Court noted the divergent views on the interpretation of Section 14(3) of the said Act. The first view was that Section 14(3) of the said Act created a complete prohibition on filing of a suit within five years of the tenancy. This was endorsed by the Court in Ashok Kumar vs. Suresh Chand and Others, 1996 (1) RLW 380 (Raj.) and Kahtoon Begum (Deceased) through LRs. vs. Bhagwan Das and Others, 2004 (1) RLW 502 (Raj.). The second view reflected in Late Mahadev and Others vs. Babu Lal and Others, (2006) 4 RDD 1868 (Raj.) and M/s. Vadhumal Kanhaiyalal and Others vs. Hemchand and Others, 2007 (270) WLC (Raj.) UC was that irregularity of a petition filed within five years of tenancy would get cured by the decree of eviction being made after the expiry of such period. The Division Bench agreed with the former interpretation, finding that there was no ambiguity in the language of Section 14(3) of the said Act, which created a complete bar to the filing of the suit. The provision is as under:
“14. Restriction on eviction:
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no suit for eviction from the premises let out for commercial or business purposes shall lie against a tenant on the ground set forth in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 13 before the expiry of fiv
