LI Network
Published on: October 25, 2023 at 15:10 IST
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be invoked to extend the time limits prescribed by specific statutes when those statutes define shorter time periods for particular purposes.
In this particular case, the Court referred to Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which allows tenants to seek protection against eviction. This section specifies that an extension for paying arrears of rent can be granted only once and for a maximum of two months.
The Court also noted that Section 40 of the same Act subjects it to the Limitation Act.
The Court stated that while the Limitation Act generally applies to proceedings under the Tenancy Act, if the Tenancy Act prescribes a shorter time period as a limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be used to expand it.
In the case at hand, the tenant had not paid rent for several months, leading to eviction proceedings. The tenant filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Tenancy Act, but they were outside the statutory period.
The Trial Court rejected the applications as they were filed 10 months late. The High Court directed the Trial Court to consider the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with the tenant citing improper legal advice for the delay.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in tenancy disputes, where there is no dispute about the admitted rent, all arrears must be deposited. The Court stressed that tenants must strictly adhere to the provisions of Tenancy Acts, even when there is a dispute about the rent. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and restored the Trial Court order.
Case Title: Debasish Paul & Anr V. Amal Boral
Also Read: limitation-period-for-major-appeals