Supreme Court clarifies the interpretation of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 in eviction cases: Ravi Khandelwal vs. M/S. Taluka Stores (2023) INSC 615 (11 July 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 615
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can a suit for eviction filed within five years of the commencement of a tenancy be maintained if the five-year period expires during the pendency of the suit? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the interpretation of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The Court examined whether the restriction on filing an eviction suit within five years is an absolute bar or a curable defect. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with the opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The appellant, Ravi Khandelwal, is the landlord of a shop in Jaipur, and the respondent, M/S. Taluka Stores, is the tenant. The appellant purchased the property on January 30, 1985, at which time the respondent was already a tenant. The appellant filed a suit for eviction on May 21, 1985, citing bona fide necessity. The trial court dismissed the suit on October 30, 2002, because it was filed within five years of the tenancy, violating Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court determined that the tenancy began on June 8, 1982, based on a lease deed executed by the previous owner.

The first appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision on March 18, 2004, based on the respondent’s admission that the tenancy initially began in 1958 with a different owner. The appellate court found that the suit was not barred by Section 14(3) of the said Act, as the original lease deed of June 8, 1982, was not presented before the trial court. The respondent then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, noting conflicting views on the interpretation of Section 14(3) of the said Act, referred the matter to a larger bench. The question was whether the five-year limitation under Section 14(3) bars the suit itself or only the passing of a decree within that period. The Division Bench of the High Court held that Section 14(3) creates a complete bar to filing a suit within five years, agreeing with the view taken in *Ashok Kumar v. Suresh Chand & Ors.* and *Kahtoon Begum (deceased) through LRs v. Bhagwan Das & Ors.*, and disagreeing with the view taken in *Late Mahadev & Ors. v. Babu Lal & Ors.* and *M/s. Vadhumal Kanhaiyalal & Ors. v. Hemchand & Ors.*

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in question is Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which states:

“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 five years from the date the premises were let out to the tenant.”

This section restricts landlords from filing eviction suits based on bona fide necessity (clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act) within five years of the start of the tenancy.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that a literal interpretation of Section 14(3) of the said Act would lead to an absurd outcome. The intent of the provision is to protect tenants for five years, but in this case, a literal interpretation would extend protection for 38 years after the suit was filed in 1985.
• The appellant contended that the term ‘shall lie’ in Section 14(3) of the said Act implies the suit is defective for five years and becomes valid afterwards.
• The appellant relied on *B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan*, where the Supreme Court considered a similar clause under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which prohibited filing an eviction suit for three years after the landlord acquired the property. The Court in *B. Banerjee* held that the spirit of protection is fulfilled after three years, and a fresh suit would cause unnecessary litigation.
• The appellant cited *Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge and Ors.*, which stated that a bar on deciding a suit does not prevent filing it, and *Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India*, which opined that a premature suit does not affect the court’s jurisdiction and can be entertained after maturity.
• The appellant argued that *R. Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) by LRs* was not applicable, as it dealt with an absolute bar on filing suits under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the word ‘lie’ in Section 14(3) of the said Act means ‘to subsist; be maintainable or admissible,’ as stated in *R. Rajagopal’s* case. Therefore, if the suit itself is not maintainable, no decree can be passed.
• The respondent contended that if the legislature intended eviction decrees to be passed after five years, Section 14(3) of the said Act would have been worded differently.
• The respondent distinguished *B. Banerjee’s* case, stating it pertained to the constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ *Ashok Kumar v. Suresh Chand & Ors.* and *Kahtoon Begum (deceased) through LRs v. Bhagwan Das & Ors.*: The Supreme Court disagreed with the view taken by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan in these cases which supported the interpretation that Section 14(3) of the said Act created a complete prohibition on filing a suit within five years of the tenancy.

✓ *Late Mahadev & Ors. v. Babu Lal & Ors.* and *M/s. Vadhumal Kanhaiyalal & Ors. v. Hemchand & Ors.*: The Supreme Court did not specifically endorse the view taken in these cases, but agreed with the idea that the 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.

✓ *B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan* [(1975) 1 SCC 166]: The Supreme Court relied on this case to support the view that the spirit of protection is fulfilled with the passage of the prescribed time period, and filing a fresh suit would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation.

✓ *Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge and Ors.* [(1998) 1 SCC 732]: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the argument that a bar on deciding a suit does not prevent filing it.

✓ *Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India* [(2005) 4 SCC 315]: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the argument that a premature suit does not affect the court’s jurisdiction and can be entertained after maturity.

✓ *R. Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) by LRs* [1995 (2) SCC 630]: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable due to the absolute bar on filing suits under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the extraordinary delay of 38 years in the proceedings, which far exceeded the five-year protection period intended by Section 14(3) of the said Act. The Court emphasized that the objective of the provision was to protect the tenant for five years, and this objective had been subserved by the passage of time. The Court also aimed to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of litigation. The Court also considered that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 itself had been abrogated in 2001, with a new statute coming into force.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the five-year restriction under Section 14(3) of the said Act was intended to protect the tenant for five years. However, since the proceedings had been ongoing for 38 years, the initial impediment against the suit was washed away. The Court emphasized that the objective of Section 14(3) of the said Act was to protect the tenant for five years, and this objective had been fulfilled by the passage of time. The Court also noted that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, itself had been abrogated in 2001.

The Court stated, “We opine that this passage of time beyond the period of five years would wash away the initial impediment against the suit.” The Court further added, “We are in agreement with the view adopted in B. Banerjee’s case that the spirit of protection is fulfilled with the passage of the prescribed time period, and the filing of a fresh suit would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation.” The Court also observed, “We also believe that so much time having passed, it would be a mockery of justice to make the parties to go through another round in the second appeal.”

The Court affirmed the first appellate court’s decree of eviction and directed the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the premises by September 30, 2023. The Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice.

Key Takeaways

• A suit for eviction filed within five years of the tenancy, as restricted by Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, can be maintained if the five-year period expires during the pendency of the suit.
• The objective of Section 14(3) of the said Act is to protect the tenant for five years, and this objective is fulfilled by the passage of time.
• Courts should avoid interpretations that lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice in cases where there has been extraordinary delay.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to hand over vacant and physical possession of the tenanted premises on or before September 30, 2023. The respondent was also asked to file an undertaking to avail of the benefit of further occupation till this date within two weeks.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that the restriction on filing an eviction suit within five years under Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is not an absolute bar. The bar is intended to protect the tenant for five years, and if the suit continues beyond this period, the initial impediment is washed away. This clarifies the interpretation of the provision, which was previously subject to conflicting views in the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Ravi Khandelwal vs. M/S. Taluka Stores* clarifies that the five-year restriction on filing eviction suits under Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is not an absolute bar. The Court held that if the five-year period expires during the pendency of the suit, the initial defect is cured, and the suit can be maintained. This decision aims to prevent unnecessary delays and multiplicity of litigation, ensuring that the objective of the provision is met without causing injustice.

Category

Parent category: Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950

• Child category: Section 14(3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950
• Child category: Eviction Suit
• Child category: Rent Control
• Child category: Tenant Protection

FAQ

Q: What does Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, say?

A: Section 14(3) of the said Act states that no eviction suit can be filed against a tenant for commercial or business premises within five years from the start of the tenancy, based on the ground of bona fide necessity.

Q: If a landlord files an eviction suit within five years, can it ever be valid?

A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court, if the five-year period expires while the suit is ongoing, the initial defect is cured, and the suit can be maintained.

Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision?

A: The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the case had been ongoing for 38 years, far exceeding the five-year protection period intended by the law. The court wanted to ensure that the spirit of the law was followed without causing unnecessary delays.

Q: What should a landlord do if they want to evict a tenant?

A: Landlords should ensure they comply with all legal requirements, including waiting for the five-year period to expire before filing an eviction suit based on bona fide necessity, or ensuring that the five year period has expired during the pendency of the suit, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Q: What does this judgment mean for tenants?

A: This judgment means that tenants are protected from eviction suits for the first five years of their tenancy, and the courts will ensure that this protection is upheld. However, if a suit is filed within the five-year period, it does not mean that the suit is invalid if the five-year period has expired during the pendency of the suit.