LexSMT. SHAKUNTALA S. TIWARI versus HEM CHAND M. SINGHANIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SMT. SHAKUNTALA S. TIWARI v. HEM CHAND M. SINGHANIA MAY 6, 1987 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] Bombay Rents, H"telr and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Sections 12 and 13-Harmonious construction-Necessity for as provisions co exist-Suit for recovery of possession by landlord- C Period of limitation-What is. Limitation Act 1963: Recovery of possession by. landlord under section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act-Period of limita- tion-Would be 12 years under Articles 66 or 67 and not 3 years under D Article 113. The appellant in the appeals was the tenant of the demised pre· mises who was inducted as a montllly tenant for the purpose of conduct· Ing the.ke-cream business carried on by her husband. The letting was E done on an agreement dated December 29, 1975 by the landlord-res- pondent which was to become effective from January 1, 1976. The landlord alleged that in breach of the agreement and the terms of the tenancy, as also in violation of the prohibition prescribed under section 13(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels & Lodging House F Rates (Control) Act, 1947 the tenant had indulged in serveral acts of commission by which not only there had been permanent alterations of major nature, but the entire structure of the demised premises was completely changed. It was also alleged that the tenant bad indulged in acts of waste and damage to the property, and that she had changed the user of the premises when some of the employees started residing there. G On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the landlord gave a notice to.quit dated 20th September, 1978 to the tenant. Thereafter in 1979 the landlord ftled a suit against the tenant in the Small Causes Court for possession of the demised premises. The Trial Court on 1 lth November, H 1982 decreed the suit upholding the allegation that the tenant bad made 306 --- --- --<- ----·- - - .. SMT. SHAKUNTALA v. HEM CHAND 307 ~ ,l. alterations of permanent nature in the demised premises and bad A committed acts or waste and damage. - Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 28th September, 1985, and the respondent's suit for eviction was dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by lapse of time under Article B 113 of the Limitation Act, 1973, which prescribed a period of three years. The landlord thereafter filed a writ petition under Article 227 which was allowed by the High Court which held that Article 66 or Article 67 was applicable which prescribed a period of 12 years. The C writ petition filed by the tenant was however dismissed. lo the appeals by the tenant to this Court the only question for consideration was: whether Article 113 or either of Articles 66 or 67 of the Limitation Act would be applicable, and what would be the date of the accrual of the cause of action. D On behalf of the tenant-appellant it was contended that on the facts of the case Article 113 of the Limitation Act alone would apply and that neither Article 66 nor Article 67 would have any applica- tion. Article 67 of the Limitation Act bad no application inasmuch as time begins to run only when the tenancy is determined and that E determination of tenancy which takes place under the Transfer of Pro- perty Act is wholly irrelevant for cause of action in ejectmeot. That Article 66 contemplates an immediate right to recover possession. Breach of a condition only leads to an immediate right to possession without more, and not a determination in law. That Article 66 is a general article which does not apply to landlord or tenant, and that F when a specific Article applied the general Article should not be applied specially when it was not free from doubt. On behalf of the respondent-landlord it was however submitted that for any suit by a landlord against the tenant for recovery of posses· "">' sion under the Rent Act the Limitation Act was inherently inapplicable. G Dismissing the Appeals, .,. HELD: 1. Recovery of possession is by a suit and there is no section in the scheme of the Limitation Act to indicate that the Limita- tion Act was inherently inapplicable. Io the scheme of the Rent Act or in H - 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 3.S.C.R. A the various contingencies contemplated under the Rent Act, there is nothing to indicate or warrant th 0at there would be no limitation of any period. [311E·F) 2. Sec:tions 12 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.