CASE DETAILS v. AMAL BORAL

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 511 512 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