INTRODUCTION
The Supreme dealt with the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The case revolved around the demand raised for revised license fees by a public authority and whether such demand was barred by limitation.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In 2003, New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) allotted land to the respondents on license basis, with a clause for revision of license fee every 5 years. In 2010, NMPT revised the license fee retrospectively from 2007, which led to a dispute.
The licensees challenged the retrospective hike before the High Court in 2011-12. A Single Judge dismissed the petitions in 2013, upholding the retrospective revision. Intra-court appeals were filed and remained pending.
Meanwhile, demand notices were issued, which the licensees resisted citing pendency of the appeals. A notice under Section 7(1) of the Public Premises Act was issued; however, the respondents again contested the demand on technical and procedural grounds.
The District Court and the High Court ruled that the demand was barred by limitation, noting that the 3-year period had expired. NMPT appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
- Whether the demand raised by NMPT was barred by limitation.
- Whether the respondents’ objection to the demand constituted an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 18.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
The Limitation Act is applicable in entirety to proceedings under the PP Act, including Section 18. The respondents acknowledged the liability by requesting deferment of payment due to pending appeals. The acknowledgment falls within the ambit of Section 18, hence the limitation period must be extended. The High Court erred by deciding the writ petition despite pending intra-court appeals on the core issue of retrospective fee revision.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The demand was barred by limitation as per Section 3 and Article 52 of the Limitation Act. Section 18 was not applicable to proceedings under the Public Premises Act. There was no acknowledgment of liability; rather, they consistently denied liability, especially due to the challenge to the 2010 notification. The demand was premature as the appeals were still pending, and hence time for payment had not arisen.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court clarified that once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions apply, including Section 18. The respondents had not denied the demand on merits but only objected to its enforceability due to pending litigation. The communication requesting deferment of payment was held to be an acknowledgment of liability within the scope of Explanation (a) to Section 18(1). The technical objection to limitation raised by the respondents was considered an attempt to delay rightful payment. The High Court was criticized for proceeding with the writ petition despite pending intra-court appeals that could directly impact the outcome.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the District Court and High Court. Held that NMPT is entitled to benefit under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Restored the writ petition to be heard after the decision in intra-court appeals. Observed that if the appeals succeed, the demand becomes unenforceable; if not, the respondents are liable to pay with interest. Reinforced that public law remedies are not to be defeated by hyper-technical objections when liability is not genuinely denied.
