Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the initial restriction stipulated in the statute, in filing an eviction suit, cannot be prolonged so long as to defeat the very purpose of provision meant to safeguard the interest of the tenant.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed an appeal filed by Ravi Khandelwal against his tenant M/s Taluka Stores and directed the respondent to hand over vacant and physical possession of the tenanted premises at Jaipur by September 30, 2023, after noting prolonged dispute spanning 38 years.

The appellant, who purchased the property, on January 30, 1985, sought eviction of the tenant on bona fide necessity. But the suit was dismissed in 2002 as plaint was filed within five years of letting out the premises, which was proscribed under Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

In the first appeal, the order was set aside in 2004 by the court after noting the shop was initially leased in 1958 and the suit cannot be said to be hit by the restriction.

On the second appeal, a single judge in HC framed a preliminary question of maintainability in 2018 and in view of conflicting views on interpretation of the provision, referred the matter to a larger bench.

The division bench in 2020 held  that there was no ambiguity in the language of Section 14(3) of the Act, which created a complete bar to the filing of the suit within five years of tenancy.

The top court, in its decision, said this provision is for the protection of a tenant and its objective is that from the date a tenant acquires a right, he must have a right to continue in the premises for a period of five years, subject to his fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the lease.

However, "What stares us in the face is that while the suit may have been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy, more than 38 years have now elapsed since the suit was filed," the bench said.

"We opine that this passage of time beyond the period of five years would wash away the initial impediment against the suit. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we stare at a factual scenario where the vagaries of litigation have prolonged the suit proceedings for a period of 38 years," the bench said.

The court noted the plea of the respondent is that the appellant should be asked to file a fresh suit – perhaps their confidence stems from the fact that if the tenant has already been able to prolong the proceedings for 38 years, a similar scenario would again follow. 

"We are not able to countenance such an interpretation which would defeat the very purpose of creating an initial restriction on the filing of the suit. To say that the landlord should now, once again, restart the proceedings because the initial period of five years had not elapsed, even as now 38 years have elapsed, would be a travesty of justice," the bench said.

The court also pointed out the objective of the provision has been subserved and the proceedings have continued for 38 years which is extra ordinary.

It also subsequent development in which the previous Act itself has been abrogated in the year 2001, with a new statute coming into force, i.e. the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which does not create any similar bar.

In view of the fact 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. Thus, we are of the view that a quietus should be put to this prolonged dispute spanning 38 years, on something as simple as tenancy issue and as to when the proceedings commenced. We are also armed with the extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do absolute justice inter se the parties," the bench said.

The court declined to remit back the matter as it saw no question of law to be determined in second appeal.

Case Title: Ravi Khandelwal Vs M/S Taluka Stores