DEVI SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE CHAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following facts are not in dispute: "The petitioner is the lessee of a shop in the Municipal Meat Market, Chamba, which is owned by the first respondent (Municipal Committee, Chamba). The rent with respect to the said shop being in arrears, proceedings under section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were instituted against the petitioner, vide Annexure P -l, on June 5, 1985 before the Competent Authority performing the functions of the Collector under the Act, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,670.35. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 324 before the Collector on June 2, 1986. The Collector passed an order on July 14, 1986. Annexure P -3, holding that the petitioner was in arrears of rent but he had paid the rent in arrears "for the last three years" and that the claim for the balance amount was barred in view of section 2 (j) read with section 3 and Article 52 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Limitation Act"). In view of the aforesaid holding, the claim for such balance amount was held inadmissible and the proceedings were ordered to be filed, An appeal carried against the said decision by the first respondent to the Appellate Authority was, however, accepted and allowed vide Annexure P -5 on September 8, 1987, on the ground that Article 112 of the Limitation Act was applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and that the prescribed period of limitation being 30 years, the claim for the recovery of the balance amount of arrears of rent could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. The result was that the petitioner became liable to pay the balance amount claimed as and by way of arrears of rent. Hence the present writ petition."

(2.) The question arising for determination in the present case is no longer res integra. In New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram and another, AIR 1976 SC 1637, the question for consideration was whether the licence fees in arrears for the period from May, 1950 to April, 1957 in respect of a stall allotted to the respondent in that case by the appellant -Municipal Committee for which a demand was made only in December, 1960 could be ordered to be paid and recovered in proceedings instituted under section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. The following observations made in para 2 of the judgment are relevant and, therefore, are extracted verbatim: "It is not questioned that a creditor whose suit is barred by limitation, if he has any other legal remedy permitting him to enforce his claim, would be free to avail of it. But the question in every such case is whether the particular statute permits such a course. Does section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 create a right to realise arrears of rent without any limitation of time? Under section 7 the Estate Officer may order any person who is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as he may specify in the order. Before however the order is made, a notice must issue calling upon the defaulter to show -cause why such order should not be made and, if he raised any objection, the Estate Officer must consider the same and the evidence produced in support of it. Thus the Estate Officer has to determine upon hearing the objection the amount of rent in arrears which is payable. The word payable is somewhat indefinite in import and its meaning must be gathered from the context in which it occurs. Payable generally means that which should be paid. If the person in arrears raises a dispute as to the amount, the Estate Officer in determining the amount payable cannot ignore the existing laws. If the recovery of any amount is barred by the law of limitation, it is difficult to hold that the Estate Officer could still insist that the said amount was payable. When a duty is cast on an authority to determine the arrears of rent, the determination must be in accordance with law. Section 7 only provides a special procedure for the realisation of rent in arrears and does not constitute a source or foundation of a right to claim a debt otherwise time barred.....................................We are clear that the word "payable" in section 7, in the context in which it occurs, means "legally recoverable". Admittedly a suit to recover the arrears instituted on the day the order under section 7 was made would have been barred by limitation. The amount in question was therefore irrecoverable."

(3.) Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 is in pari materia with section 7 of the Act which is under consideration (see Footnote). The decision in Kalu Rams case, therefore, squarely covers the issue which falls for consideration in the present case. In light of the said decision, it must be held that the amount claimed as and by way of arrears of rent for a period exceeding three years preceding the date of the order of the Collector was irrecoverable and that, therefore, the Collector was right in rejecting such claim and the Appellate Authority was wrong in reversing the decision of the Collector.