Whether court can direct tenant to deposit time barred rent?

 The second contention raised by Mr. Baadkar, however, need a careful examination. He contends that under Section 11(4) of the said Act the Court would not be having jurisdiction to direct deposit of time barred rent. This contention is based upon the ground that the Court could not have decreed the plaintiff's suit for time barred rent even at the time of the passing of the decree for eviction. He, therefore, contends that nothing which could not have been done at the final stage could be done at the interim stage. I am unable to agree with Mr. Baadkar on this point. Even at the time of the final stage when decree for eviction is to be passed the Court give protection to the tenant and allow him to remain in possession, but only if he pays all the arrears of rent including time barred. The position is that in such a case the Court is not decreeing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of rent. If the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of rent simpliciter, the Court would have no option but to dismiss the suit so far as the time barred rent was concerned. This effect follows inexorably from the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act. When the Court passes a decree giving relief to the tenant to continue to be in possession provided he pays all the arrears of rent including time barred rent, the Court does not pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff decreeing his suit for arrears of time barred rent as well. The Court is in fact giving the relief to the tenant on certain condition and so far as that condition is concerned, the question as to whether the dues of the defendants are barred by limitation or not is an irrelevant consideration. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 542 of 1980

Decided On: 28.10.1980

The Children's Educational Uplift Society and Anr. Vs. Kaushalya Govindsing Moral

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.G. Manohar, J.

Citation : AIR 1981 Bom 364

Print Page

When tenant is liable to pay time barred rent to avoid eviction?

In Sriniwas Babulal (supra) relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent it was held that the demand of time
barred rent in a notice issued under Section 15 of the said Act
was not fatal and it was incumbent on the tenant to pay even

time barred arrears.   It is, therefore, clear that the expression
“then   due”   will   have   to   be   construed     to   include   amount   of
arrears that were due and payable  disregarding the fact that  part
thereof had become time barred.  In Khadi Gram Udyog Trust  Vs.
Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir Sarasiya Ghat, Kanpur (1978) 1
Supreme Court Cases 44, it was held by the Supreme Court that
even if the remedy was barred, the debt was not extinguished and
if   the   tenant   wanted   to   seek   benefit   of   the   statute   then   for
avoiding the decree of eviction, the amounts due were required to
be paid.  Hence,  the expression “then due” in Section 15(3) of
the said Act would include the amount of arrears even prior to
three years of such notice.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR
BENCH NAGPUR.
WRIT    PETITION     NO.   1639     OF     2014

Prabhakar Venkobaji Manekar,V Surendra Dinanath Sharma,

CORAM:   A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
Dated    :   FEBRUARY  12, 2015.
Citation; 2015(4) MHLJ 351 Bom

Print Page

Whether eviction of tenant is permissible in case of non payment of time barred rent?

 It is well settled law that law of limitation bars the remedy of the claimant to recover the rent for the period beyond three years prior to the institution of the suit, but that cannot be a ground for defeating the claim of the landlord for decree of eviction on satisfaction of the ingredients of the said section.

Bombay High Court

Shri Subhash Janardhan Kulkarni vs Smt.Rajashree W/O Avinash ... on 15 January, 2009

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J
DATE : JANUARY 15, 2009.
Equivalent Citation: AIR1983Bom212, 1982(84)BOMLR537, 1983MhLJ254

Print Page