In Civil Appeal No.6565 of 2023 -SC- ‘Limitation Act cannot be used to extend lesser limitation period specified in West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act’: Supreme Court
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia [18-10-2023]

Read Order: Debasish Paul & Anr. V. Amal Boral

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, October 19, 2023: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the Calcutta High Court could not have invoked the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to grant the tenant the benefit of having their claim considered by the Trial Court.

Briefly stated, the appellants, who were landlords, initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent, their tenant, due to non-payment of rent. The respondent, in response, had filed an application under Sections 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. However, this application was initially rejected by the Trial Court because the respondent had delayed filing it by ten months. The respondent then appealed to the High Court, which, in a judgment dated 21.08.2019, set aside the Trial Court's decision and allowed the respondent to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to explain the delay in their previous application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

The core argument in the case revolved around whether the High Court had the authority to use Section 5 of the Limitation Act to grant the respondent this extension.

The division bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that, while the Limitation Act generally applied to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, in view of Section 40 of the said Act, if there was a shorter time period specified as a limitation in the said Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act could not be used to extend it.

The division bench concluded that the restricted proviso under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which set a specific time limit for extensions, had to be applied.

Additionally, the bench emphasized that the mere allegation of the absence of correct legal advice couldn't assist the respondent. It was stated that if such a plea were to be accepted, it would essentially grant tenants a license to occupy premises without paying rent and later claim they were not correctly advised.

Consequently, the bench determined that the High Court's decision was unsustainable and upheld the Trial Court's order dated 11.09.2018.