Case Note & Summary
The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute over a shop in Jaipur. The appellant, Ravi Khandelwal, purchased the property on 30.01.1985 from its erstwhile owner, M/s Jaipur Metal Electric Co. At the time of purchase, the respondent, M/s Taluka Stores, was already a tenant. The appellant filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide necessity on 21.05.1985 before the Additional Civil Judge-I, Jaipur. The trial court dismissed the suit on 30.10.2002, holding that the plaint was not laid in accordance with Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which bars the filing of a suit for eviction within five years from the date of letting. The trial court found that the premises were leased only on 08.06.1982 by the predecessor-in-interest. The appellant succeeded in the first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur, on 18.03.2004, based on the respondent's admission that he had initially leased the shop from one Udai Lal in 1958, thus the suit was not barred. The respondent then filed a second appeal before the Rajasthan High Court. A learned Single Judge framed a preliminary question of maintainability due to conflicting views on the interpretation of Section 14(3) and referred the matter to a Larger Bench. The Division Bench, by judgment dated 20.04.2020, held that Section 14(3) creates a complete bar to the filing of the suit within five years of the tenancy, agreeing with the view in Ashok Kumar v. Suresh Chand and Kahtoon Begum v. Bhagwan Das, and disagreeing with the view in Late Mahadev v. Babu Lal and M/s Vadhumal Kanhaiyalal v. Hemchand. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the bar under Section 14(3) is not absolute and can be waived by the tenant. The Court noted that the respondent had admitted to being a tenant since 1958, and thus the suit filed in 1985 was not within five years of the original letting. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the first appellate court's decree of eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction Suit - Limitation under Section 14(3) - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, Section 14(3) - The provision creates a complete bar to the institution of a suit for eviction within five years from the date of letting, but the bar is not absolute and can be waived by the tenant. The relevant date for computing the five-year period is the date of original letting, not the date of purchase by the landlord. (Paras 6-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction Suit - Admission of Tenant - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, Section 14(3) - The tenant's admission that he had initially leased the shop in 1958 can be used to rebut the claim that the premises were let on 08.06.1982, and thus the suit filed in 1985 is not barred by limitation. (Paras 3-4) C) Rent Control - Eviction Suit - Second Appeal - Maintainability - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, Section 22 - Section 22 proscribes filing of second appeal from a decree under the Act, but does not prohibit second appeals from suits for eviction filed before an ordinary court of competent jurisdiction. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
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 only the consideration of the suit and passing of a decree therein.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 20.04.2020, and restored the judgment of the first appellate court dated 18.03.2004 decreeing eviction. The Court held that the bar under Section 14(3) is not absolute and can be waived, and that the suit was not barred as the tenancy commenced in 1958.
Law Points
- Section 14(3) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1950 bars institution of suit for eviction within five years of letting
- but the bar is not absolute and can be waived
- the relevant date for computing five-year period is the date of original letting
- not subsequent purchase by landlord
- admission of tenant regarding earlier tenancy can be used to rebut claim of fresh letting.
