DEBASISH PAUL & ANR. versus AMAL BORAL

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 18-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 511 : 2023 INSC 925
511
 CASE DETAILS
DEBASISH PAUL & ANR.
v.
AMAL BORAL
(Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 2023)
OCTOBER 18, 2023.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in 
directing the trial court to dispose of the application fi led by the tenant u/s. 
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the trial court had already rejected the 
application fi led 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 specifi ed 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 fi led u/s. 7(1) & (2) – Proviso only gives 
liberty to extend the time once by period not exceeding two months – Tenant 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
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 
fi ling 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 – Eff ect:
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 fl ow. [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
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6565 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2019 of the High Court at 
Calcutta in C.O. No.3859 of 2018
Appearances:
Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, Sr. Adv., Anand, Abhijit Sengupta, Ms. 
Rajeshri Nivuratirao Reddy, Rohit Jaiswal, Ms. Shivani Jain, Sanjay Kumar, 
Advs. for the Appellants.
Niteen Kumar Sinha, Sonipam M.C., Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. 
for the Respondent.
513
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Respondent is stated to have been inducted as a tenant in respect of 
shop No. AC 249, Rabindrapally, Krishnapur, Post Offi  ce Prafulla Kanan, 
Police Station Baguiati, Kolkata – 700101, District 24 Parganas (North) at an 
agreed rent of Rs.352/- per month of which the appellants are the landlords. 
It is the say of the appellants that the respondent stopped paying the rent 
from February 2005, and on that account ultimately a notice was served on 
31.10.2013 on the respondent to vacate the premises. Soon thereafter, the 
appellants fi led a suit for eviction, being title Suit No.667/2013 against the 
respondent-tenant for non-payment of rent.
2. In the proceedings, the respondent made an application under 
Sections 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Ac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.