Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Decree for Rent Default Beyond 3 Years

The Supreme Court upheld the decree of eviction based on default in rent payment beyond three years prior to the suit, clarifying that the law of limitation does not prevent a landlord from seeking eviction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The Court emphasized that the term "lawfully payable" in the provision establishes a ground for eviction, distinct from the concept of recoverability. The Court rejected the tenant's argument that eviction based on rent default beyond three years was not maintainable, affirming the decree of eviction on the grounds provided in the Act.

---

---

Issues:
- Entitlement to decree of eviction based on default in rent payment beyond three years prior to the suit.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether a landlord could obtain a decree of eviction based on default in rent payment beyond three years prior to the suit. The suit was filed for eviction and recovery of possession due to default in rent payment under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, as well as on the ground of personal necessity. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the finding of fact regarding the default in rent payment was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court. The tenant argued that a suit for eviction based on rent default beyond three years was not maintainable under the Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, citing Section 11(1)(d) of the Act which allows eviction if the rent for two months is in arrears. The Court clarified that the term "lawfully payable" in the provision does not relate to recovery but establishes a ground for eviction. The Court also distinguished a case where a debt becomes time-barred from the present scenario, emphasizing that a time-barred debt remains lawfully payable. The Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the decree of eviction based on the default in rent payment, even if it was beyond three years prior to the suit.

In conclusion, the judgment established that the law of limitation does not bar a landlord from seeking eviction based on rent default under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, even if the default occurred beyond three years prior to the suit. The Court clarified the distinction between lawfully payable and recoverable, emphasizing that the former is the key consideration for eviction. Additionally, the Court rejected the tenant's argument by citing relevant legal provisions and precedents, ultimately upholding the decree of eviction based on the grounds established in the Act.

---