Published on: 13 July 2023 at 13:30 IST
The Supreme Court has ruled that the five-year time limit specified in Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 does not prevent the filing of a lawsuit itself when the lawsuit was decided after the five-year period. The Court held that the passage of time beyond the five-year period would remove the initial barrier against the lawsuit.
The Court was addressing an appeal challenging the order of a Division Bench of the High Court, which had a different view on the matter. The Supreme Court also directed the tenant to vacate the property instead of sending the case back to the High Court due to the long duration of the case. The dispute over the property has been ongoing for 38 years, involving multiple appeals before reaching the Supreme Court.
A Two Judge Bench, headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, held that the objective of Section 14(3) of the Act, which aims to protect tenants for five years, was fulfilled by the proceedings that lasted beyond the required period. The Court noted that the proceedings had continued for 38 years, which was extraordinary.
The Court further mentioned that the Act itself was repealed in 2001, and a new statute, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, came into force, which did not impose a similar restriction. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and overturned the High Court’s decision.
During the case, the appellant had purchased a rented property in Jaipur, and they filed an eviction suit, which was dismissed for not complying with Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The appellant challenged the order before the Additional District Judge (ADJ), who ruled in their favor. The matter was then referred to a Single Judge Bench of the High Court due to conflicting judgments on the issue. The Division Bench of the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent. Consequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Division Bench’s order.
The Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 14(3) of the Act, stated that the provision aimed to protect the rights of the tenant for a period of five years from the time they acquired the tenancy, subject to fulfilling the lease’s terms and conditions.
Regarding the case, the Supreme Court held that whether the expression used is “shall lie” or “be entertained” makes no difference. The objective is to create an impediment in the initiation and trial of the lawsuit for the specified period under the Act. The Court also invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure absolute justice between the parties.