The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PPA) does not specifically mention the law of limitation for eviction proceedings under the Act. However, the general law of limitation as contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) is applicable to eviction proceedings under the PPA.
Section 14 of the LA provides that the following actions shall be barred after the expiry of the following periods:
- 3 years: Suit for possession of immovable property
- 12 years: Suit for rent
Therefore, in an eviction proceeding under the PPA, the landlord (or the government, as the case may be) must file a suit for eviction within 3 years of the date on which the unauthorised occupant entered into or continued in occupation of the public premises. If the suit is not filed within 3 years, the landlord will lose his right to evict the unauthorised occupant.
However, there are a few exceptions to the above rule. For example, if the unauthorised occupant is a minor, the landlord has 10 years to file a suit for eviction. Similarly, if the unauthorised occupant is mentally ill, the landlord has 6 years to file a suit for eviction.
In addition to the general law of limitation, there are also a few specific provisions in the PPA that deal with the law of limitation. For example, Section 9 of the PPA provides that an appeal against an order of eviction by the Estate Officer must be filed within 12 days of the date of the order. If the appeal is not filed within 12 days, it will be barred by limitation.
It is important to note that the law of limitation is a complex subject and there are many exceptions to the general rules. If you are facing eviction proceedings under the PPA, it is important to consult with a lawyer to ensure that your rights are protected.
Relevant judgment on the applicability of Law of Limitation for eviction under Public Premises Act
The law of limitation is applicable to eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. This was held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.V. Satyanarayana (1988) 3 SCC 260.
In this case, the State of Andhra Pradesh filed an eviction petition under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act against the respondent, who was an unauthorised occupant of a government building. The respondent argued that the petition was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 113 prescribes a period of three years for filing a suit for possession of immovable property.
The Supreme Court held that the law of limitation is applicable to eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act. The Court reasoned that the Public Premises Act does not contain any specific provision regarding limitation. In the absence of a specific provision, the general law of limitation would apply.
The Court also held that the period of limitation would start running from the date on which the unauthorised occupant came into possession of the public premises. This is because the unauthorised occupant would be deemed to have committed a wrong on that date.
The Supreme Court's decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.V. Satyanarayana has been followed by several other courts in India. It is now well-settled that the law of limitation is applicable to eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act.
Here are some other relevant judgments on the applicability of law of limitation for eviction under Public Premises Act:
- Delhi Development Authority v. Baldev Singh (1992) 2 SCC 270
- Gujarat Housing Board v. Mangalbhai (1997) 3 SCC 730
- Central Railway v. Babulal (2001) 2 SCC 416
- State of Karnataka v. Srirampura Munnangi (2003) 6 SCC 645
- Government of India v. Suresh Kumar (2007) 4 SCC 376