2003 (1) TMI 693 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the matter of default in deposit of rent.
2. Interpretation of the word "shall" in the context of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to cases of default in depositing rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The Court noted that the Rajasthan Act does not expressly exclude the application of the Limitation Act. However, Section 5 is not applicable to defaults in rent deposits because the deposit does not require an application, and the statutory provision under Section 13(4) already specifies a time limit for such deposits. The Court emphasized that compliance with a court order under a statutory provision does not give rise to a cause of action that would invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in cases of default in depositing rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Act.

2. Interpretation of the word "shall":
The Court analyzed whether the word "shall" in Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Act should be interpreted as mandatory or directory. The Court observed that the word "shall" is ordinarily imperative and that the power of the court to extend the time for deposit is limited to three months for arrears and fifteen days for monthly rent. The Court referred to various precedents and statutory interpretations, concluding that the word "shall" in this context is mandatory. The Court emphasized that the statutory provisions must be construed according to their plain meaning and that the courts cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or add words to a statute. The Court held that the mandatory nature of the word "shall" means that the court does not have the discretion to condone delays beyond the specified time limits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, which had allowed the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to cases of default in rent deposits and interpreted the word "shall" as "may." The appeal was allowed, and the judgment under challenge was reversed, with no order as to costs.