5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the trial court had already rejected the application filed by the tenant u/s.7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for protection against eviction, on the ground of delay of 10 months.
Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 – Applicability of, to proceedings and appeals under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Tenant, if entitled to take recourse to s. 5, when his application u/ss. 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act, seeking protection against eviction was rejected due to a delay of ten months:
Held: Though generally the Limitation Act is applicable to the provisions of the said Act in view of s.40 of the 1997 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 – Real intention of the legislation must be gathered from the language used – Tenancy Acts provide for certain protections to the tenants beyond the contractual rights, thus, the provisions must be strictly adhered to – In proceedings initiated on account of non-payment of rent, the tenant is required to deposit all arrears of rent where there is no dispute on the admitted amount of rent and even in case of a dispute – Needful has to be done within the time stipulated and should be accompanied by the application filed u/s. 7(1) & (2) – Proviso only gives liberty to extend the time once by period not exceeding two months – Tenant neither paid the rent, nor deposited the rent by moving the application nor deposited it within the extended time as stipulated in the proviso – Mere allegation of absence of correct legal advice cannot come to the aid of the tenant – Statement of arrears of rent would show that for 142 months till filing of the petition u/s. 7, rent was not paid and even thereafter arrears has not been paid – Impugned order of the High Court directing the trial court to dispose of application u/s. 5, not sustainable and is set aside – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – ss. 40, 7(1), (2). [Para 16-21] Advocates – Allegation of absence of correct legal advice – Effect: Held: Mere allegation of absence of correct legal advice cannot come to the aid of the tenant 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 – If the tenant engages an advocate and abides by his advice, then the legal consequences of not doing what is required to be done, must flow. [Para 19]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya (2019) 10 SCC 660; Nasiruddin and Ors v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577: [2003] 1 SCR
634 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.