Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between a landlady (since deceased, represented by heirs) and a tenant (since deceased, represented by heirs) regarding possession of suit premises. The landlady had let out the premises for a grocery shop under a series of 11-month agreements, the last being dated 1/2/1973. By registered notice dated 28/1/1981, the tenancy was terminated with effect from 28/2/1981 on grounds of unauthorized change of user, unauthorized permanent fixtures, and bona fide requirement. The tenant denied the allegations. On 19/6/1985, the landlady filed Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1985 for eviction and possession, alleging breach of Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. The tenant filed a written statement opposing the suit. The Single Bench of the High Court referred the question of limitation to a Division Bench: whether the suit is governed by Article 66 or Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Division Bench held that Article 67 applies when tenancy is determined by notice to quit, and limitation runs from the date of termination. Since the tenancy was terminated on 28/2/1981 and the suit was filed on 19/6/1985, it was within the 12-year period under Article 67. The court also noted that the protection under the Bombay Rent Control Act does not affect the limitation period. The reference was answered accordingly, and the petition was directed to be placed before the Single Bench for further proceedings.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 66 vs Article 67 - Suit for Possession by Landlord - The issue was whether a suit for possession filed by a landlady against a tenant after termination of tenancy by notice is governed by Article 66 (12 years from date of expiry of fixed term tenancy) or Article 67 (12 years from date of termination of tenancy). The court held that where tenancy is terminated by notice to quit, Article 67 applies, and limitation runs from the date of termination. Since the tenancy was terminated on 28/2/1981 and suit filed on 19/6/1985, it was within limitation. (Paras 1-10) B) Bombay Rent Control Act - Applicability of Limitation - The court clarified that the protection under the Bombay Rent Control Act does not alter the limitation period for filing a suit for possession after termination of tenancy. The suit is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963, and Article 67 applies when tenancy is determined by notice. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit by landlady against a tenant protected under the Bombay Rent Control Act would be governed by Article 66 or Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Final Decision
The Division Bench answered the reference by holding that a suit by a landlady against a tenant protected under the Bombay Rent Control Act would be governed by Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petition was directed to be placed before the Single Bench for further proceedings.
Law Points
- Limitation for suit for possession by landlord against tenant after termination of tenancy is governed by Article 67 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- not Article 66
- Article 67 applies when tenancy is determined by notice to quit
- Article 66 applies when tenancy is for a fixed term and expires by efflux of time
- suit for possession filed within 12 years from date of termination of tenancy is within limitation
