Summary
The Supreme Court restored rejection of a tenant’s belated application for protection against eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not enlarge the special statutory time limits for depositing rent and applying under Section 7. The tenant had neither deposited admitted arrears nor complied within the permitted time; alleged incorrect legal advice did not excuse that default.
Issues
- Whether Section 5 could extend the special time limits under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
- Whether incorrect legal advice excused failure to deposit admitted rent arrears.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7 and 40, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997General application of limitation law remained subject to the Act’s special limits. The tenant had to deposit arrears and comply with Section 7 to obtain its eviction protection. (¶¶ 7, 9–18)
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963The provision could not extend compliance beyond the restrictive scheme of Section 7, notwithstanding Section 40’s general incorporation. (¶ 13–17)
Held
- Protection under Section 7 required timely payment or deposit, including admitted arrears where rent was disputed. Filing an application alone did not suffice. (¶¶ 9–10, 16, 18)
- The restrictive proviso permitted only one extension not exceeding two months. Reading subsections (1) and (2) together, its restriction governed both; the general Limitation Act provision could not enlarge it. (¶ 16–18)
- The tenant neither paid nor deposited rent within the statutory framework. The asserted absence of correct legal advice did not justify continued occupation without complying with the payment requirement. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Appeal allowed with costs throughout. High Court order set aside and Trial Court’s rejection of the tenant’s application restored.