LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, specifically regarding the time limit for a tenant to deposit rent arrears to avoid eviction.
CASE TYPE: Tenancy Law
Case Name: Debasish Paul & Anr. vs. Amal Boral
[Judgment Date]: 18 October 2023
Date of the Judgment: 18 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 925
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can a tenant, who has defaulted on rent payments, use the general provisions of the Limitation Act to extend the time for depositing arrears, or does the specific time limit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act apply? The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue, clarifying the interplay between these two laws. The court held that the specific time limits prescribed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for depositing rent arrears must be strictly adhered to, and cannot be extended by invoking the general provisions of the Limitation Act. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Case Background
The appellants, Debasish Paul and another, are the landlords of a shop located in Kolkata. The respondent, Amal Boral, was a tenant in the shop with a monthly rent of Rs. 352. The landlords claimed that the tenant stopped paying rent from February 2005. Consequently, a notice was served on 31st October 2013 to vacate the premises, followed by an eviction suit filed by the landlords against the tenant for non-payment of rent.
In the eviction proceedings, the tenant applied under Section 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, seeking protection against eviction. The Trial Court rejected this application on 11th September 2018 because the tenant filed the application after a delay of ten months from the date of appearance in the suit. The tenant had appeared on 9th February 2016 but filed the application only on 14th December 2016. The Trial Court held that the application was not filed within the statutory period of one month, and no application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay.
Aggrieved by this decision, the tenant filed a Civil Revision before the High Court. On 21st August 2019, the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and allowed the tenant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to explain the delay in filing the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
The tenant’s explanation for the delay was that his advocate had wrongly advised him that no action was needed due to a stay order by the High Court in another case (C.O. No.233/2006). Upon realizing the error, the tenant filed a written statement along with the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act. The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act within two months.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| February 2005 | Tenant allegedly stopped paying rent. |
| 31 October 2013 | Landlords served notice to vacate the premises. |
| 2013 | Landlords filed eviction suit (Title Suit No.667/2013). |
| 9 February 2016 | Tenant appeared in the suit. |
| 14 December 2016 | Tenant filed application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. |
| 11 September 2018 | Trial Court rejected the tenant’s application. |
| 21 August 2019 | High Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and allowed the tenant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. |
| 18 October 2023 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the Trial Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court rejected the tenant’s application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, because it was filed after a delay of ten months from the date of the tenant’s appearance in the suit. The Trial Court observed that the application was not filed within the statutory period of one month, and no application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay.
The High Court, in its revision, set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and allowed the tenant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to explain the delay. The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act within two months.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 states:
“Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
This section allows for the extension of the prescribed period for filing appeals or applications if there is sufficient cause for the delay.
Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Act relating to limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to proceedings and appeals under this Act.”
This section generally makes the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings under the Tenancy Act.
Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 outlines the conditions for a tenant to get protection against eviction:
“(1) (a) On a proceeding being instituted by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in section 6, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and up to the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum.
(b) Such payment or deposit shall be made within one month of the service of summons on the tenant or, where he appears in the proceeding without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance.
(c) The tenant shall thereafter continue to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
(2) If in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), there is any dispute as to the amount of the rent payable by the tenant, the tenant shall, within the time specified in that sub-section, deposit with the Controller the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with an application for determination of the rent payable. No such deposit shall be accepted unless it is accompanied by an application for determination of the rent payable. On receipt of the application, the Controller shall, having regard to the rate at which rent was last paid and the period for which default may have been made by the tenant, make, as soon as possible within a period not exceeding one year, an order specifying the amount, if any, due from the tenant and, thereupon, the tenant shall, within one month of the date of such order, pay to the landlord the amount so specified in the order:
Provided that having regard to the circumstances of the case, an extension of time may be granted by the Controller only once and the period of such extension shall not exceed two months.”
This section mandates that a tenant must deposit all arrears of rent within one month of the service of summons or appearance in the proceedings. It also provides a mechanism for rent disputes and allows for a one-time extension of up to two months by the Controller.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that while Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, generally makes the Limitation Act applicable, the specific time period provided in Section 7 of the Tenancy Act cannot be expanded by using the general provisions of the Limitation Act.
- They contended that the matter is covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya [(2019) 10 SCC 660], which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply in such cases because the tenant has to deposit the admitted arrears of rent along with the application.
- The appellants emphasized that the tenant’s failure to deposit the rent within the stipulated time should not be condoned based on a mere allegation of incorrect legal advice.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, allows for the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, to proceedings under the Tenancy Act.
- The respondent claimed that the judgment in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya [(2019) 10 SCC 660] is contrary to the view of a three-judge bench in Nasiruddin and Ors v. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577].
- The respondent contended that the delay in filing the application was due to incorrect legal advice and that he should be given a chance to rectify the error.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Limitation Act |
|
|
| Tenant’s Default |
|
|
| Precondition for Protection |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to allow the tenant to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? | No. | The specific time limit under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, cannot be extended by using the general provisions of the Limitation Act. The tenant must deposit the rent within the stipulated time, and the proviso to Section 7(2) allows for only a limited extension by the Controller. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya [(2019) 10 SCC 660] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to the deposit of rent under the Tenancy Act. The deposit of rent along with an application for determination of dispute is a precondition to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. |
| Nasiruddin and Ors v. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Discussed the interpretation of “shall” and “may” in statutes and held that negative words indicate mandatory provisions. The Court clarified that the real intention of the legislation must be gathered from the language used. |
| Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 | Statute | Explained | Allows for extension of prescribed period for filing appeals or applications if there is sufficient cause for the delay. |
| Section 40, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 | Statute | Explained | Generally makes the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings under the Tenancy Act. |
| Section 7, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 | Statute | Explained | Outlines the conditions for a tenant to get protection against eviction, including the time limit for depositing rent arrears. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that the specific time limit under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act cannot be expanded by the Limitation Act. | Accepted. The Court held that the specific time limits under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act must be strictly adhered to. |
| Appellants’ reliance on Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya [(2019) 10 SCC 660]. | Accepted. The Court followed this judgment, which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply in such cases. |
| Respondent’s submission that Section 40 of the Tenancy Act allows for the application of the Limitation Act. | Partially accepted. The Court acknowledged that the Limitation Act generally applies but held that it cannot override the specific time limits under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act. |
| Respondent’s reliance on Nasiruddin and Ors v. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577]. | Distinguished. The Court clarified that the intention of the legislature must be gathered from the scheme of the Act, and in this case, the specific time limits under the Tenancy Act prevail. |
| Respondent’s contention that the delay was due to incorrect legal advice. | Rejected. The Court held that incorrect legal advice is not a valid ground for condoning the delay. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court followed Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya [(2019) 10 SCC 660], stating that the deposit of rent along with the application is a precondition to avoid eviction.
- The Court distinguished Nasiruddin and Ors v. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577], clarifying that the specific provisions of the Tenancy Act regarding time limits must be followed.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure strict adherence to the specific provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Court emphasized that the Tenancy Act provides certain protections to tenants beyond contractual rights, but these protections come with the responsibility of adhering to the stipulated time limits for rent payments. The Court also noted that allowing tenants to avoid eviction by claiming incorrect legal advice would create a loophole, allowing tenants to occupy premises without paying rent. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the tenant had not paid rent for a considerable period.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Strict adherence to the time limits under the Tenancy Act | 40% |
| Need to prevent misuse of legal provisions to avoid rent payment | 30% |
| Importance of timely payment of rent by tenants | 20% |
| Rejection of incorrect legal advice as a valid excuse | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretation and the need to uphold the specific provisions of the Tenancy Act. The factual aspects of the case, such as the tenant’s failure to pay rent for a long period, also played a role in the court’s decision. The court’s emphasis on legal principles and the need to avoid misuse of legal provisions weighed more heavily than the specific facts of the case.
Logical Reasoning:
Tenant defaults on rent payments
Landlord initiates eviction proceedings
Tenant applies under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
Application filed after the statutory time period
Tenant seeks condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Supreme Court holds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply due to specific time limits in Section 7 of the Tenancy Act
Tenant’s application for protection against eviction is rejected
The Supreme Court considered the argument that the tenant’s delay was due to incorrect legal advice, but rejected it. The Court reasoned that if such a plea was accepted, it would allow tenants to occupy premises without paying rent, undermining the purpose of the Tenancy Act. The Court also considered the larger context of the Tenancy Act, which provides protection to tenants, but also imposes obligations on them, including the timely payment of rent. The Court emphasized that the specific time limits under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act cannot be circumvented by invoking the general provisions of the Limitation Act.
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “The deposit of rent along with an application for determination of dispute is a precondition to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. In view thereof, tenant will not be able to take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act as it is not an application alone which is required to be filed by the tenant but the tenant has to deposit admitted arrears of rent as well.”
- “We have no doubt over the proposition that though generally the Limitation Act is applicable to the provisions of the said Act in view of Section 40 of the said Act, if there is a lesser time period specified as limitation in the said Act, then the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be used to expand the same.”
- “The mere allegation of absence of correct legal advice cannot come to the aid of the respondent as if such a plea was to be accepted it would give a complete license to a tenant to occupy premises without payment of rent and then claim that he was not correctly advised.”
The decision has significant implications for future cases involving tenancy disputes in West Bengal. It clarifies that tenants must strictly adhere to the time limits for depositing rent arrears to avoid eviction. The judgment also emphasizes that incorrect legal advice is not a valid ground for condoning delays in complying with statutory requirements.
The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. Instead, it clarified the existing legal framework by interpreting the interplay between the Limitation Act and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that specific statutory provisions must prevail over general provisions, particularly when they relate to time limits.
Key Takeaways
- Tenants in West Bengal must deposit rent arrears within one month of receiving a summons or appearing in court, as per Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
- The general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be used to extend the specific time limits for depositing rent arrears under the Tenancy Act.
- Incorrect legal advice is not a valid reason for condoning delays in complying with the statutory requirements for rent payments.
- Tenants must ensure timely payment of rent to avoid eviction proceedings.
- The judgment reinforces the principle that specific statutory provisions prevail over general provisions, especially regarding time limits.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 21.08.2019 and upheld the Trial Court’s order dated 11.09.2018. The appeal was allowed with costs in favor of the appellants.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the specific time limits prescribed under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, for depositing rent arrears must be strictly adhered to, and cannot be extended by invoking the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. This judgment clarifies the interplay between the two Acts and reinforces the principle that specific statutory provisions prevail over general provisions, especially when dealing with time limits. The Supreme Court upheld the position taken in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya [(2019) 10 SCC 660] and clarified that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be used to extend the time period provided under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. This reinforces the position that tenants must comply with the specific requirements of the Tenancy Act to avail protection against eviction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Debasish Paul & Anr. vs. Amal Boral clarifies that tenants in West Bengal must strictly adhere to the time limits for depositing rent arrears as specified in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Court held that the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be used to extend these specific time limits. This decision emphasizes the importance of timely rent payments and ensures that tenants cannot avoid eviction by claiming incorrect legal advice. The judgment sets a clear precedent for future tenancy disputes in West Bengal, reinforcing the need for tenants to comply with the specific requirements of the Tenancy Act to avail protection against eviction.
Category
Parent Category: Tenancy Law
Child Categories:
- West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
- Section 7, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
- Limitation Act, 1963
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963
- Eviction
- Rent Arrears
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Debasish Paul vs. Amal Boral case?
A: The main issue was whether a tenant can use the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, to extend the time for depositing rent arrears under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, to avoid eviction.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the specific time limits for depositing rent arrears under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, must be strictly followed and cannot be extended by using the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Q: What is the time limit for a tenant to deposit rent arrears?
A: A tenant must deposit all arrears of rent within one month of the service of summons or appearance in the court proceedings.
Q: Can a tenant claim incorrect legal advice as a reason for delay in depositing rent?
A: No, the Supreme Court held that incorrect legal advice is not a valid ground for condoning delays in complying with the statutory requirements for rent payments.
Q: What happens if a tenant does not deposit rent within the stipulated time?
A: If a tenant does not deposit rent within the stipulated time, they may not be able to get protection against eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Q: What does the judgment mean for tenants in West Bengal?
A: The judgment means that tenants in West Bengal must strictly adhere to the time limits for depositing rent arrears to avoid eviction. They cannot rely on the general provisions of the Limitation Act to extend these time limits.