The Bombay High Court has clarified that unlawful subletting of tenanted premises constitutes a continuing wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period for eviction suits until the subletting ceases. This ruling resolves a long-standing ambiguity in landlord-tenant jurisprudence and reinforces the rights of property owners against prolonged unauthorized occupation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a claim of unlawful subletting of Room No. R/4, House No. 411/Back, Ground Floor, Kadri Mansion, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The suit premises were originally tenanted to late Mr. Ballaram Hullaji. Respondent No. 1, the Plaintiff, acquired ownership of the building through four Deeds of Conveyance dated 30 September 2006 and 10 October 2006. Upon taking possession, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant No. 2, Mr. Ratnadeep Shankar Narkar, was in actual occupation of the premises. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 2 was an unlawful sub-tenant, having taken possession without the consent of the original landlord, and had defaulted in payment of rent.
Key Facts
- Late Mr. Ballaram Hullaji was the original monthly tenant of the suit premises.
- Defendant No. 2 (Applicant) claimed he was inducted as a tenant in November 1995 through an assignment from Defendant No. 1, with the consent of the erstwhile owners.
- The transfer of tenancy was not formally documented due to ongoing disputes between the original owners and the appointment of a Court Receiver.
- Rent payments were consistently made by Defendant No. 2 from 1995 onwards.
- The Plaintiff issued a legal notice demanding arrears of rent on 24 February 2007.
- The Plaintiff filed R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 643/1132 of 2008 on 27 May 2008, naming the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 as respondents.
- The Plaint was later amended to bring on record the legal heirs of Defendant No. 1, who had died in 1986.
- The list appended to the Deeds of Conveyance included Defendant No. 2’s name, but under the category of "occupants," not "tenants."
- Defendant No. 2 continued to occupy the premises until the judgment date in 2026.
Procedural History
- November 1995: Defendant No. 2 allegedly took possession of the suit premises.
- 30 September 2006 & 10 October 2006: Plaintiff acquired ownership of Kadri Mansion via Deeds of Conveyance.
- 24 February 2007: Plaintiff issued legal notice demanding rent arrears.
- 27 May 2008: R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 643/1132 of 2008 filed in the Court of Small Causes.
- 6 July 2019: Trial Court decreed the suit on grounds of unlawful subletting and default in rent, ordering eviction and payment of arrears.
- 2019: Defendant No. 2 filed Appeal No. 302 of 2019 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court.
- 2021 - 2025: Defendant No. 2 filed four applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence (Exhibits 22, 23, 71, 72) and one for framing an additional issue on limitation (Exhibit 67).
- 22 January 2026: Appellate Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting, rejecting the ground of default in rent, and answering the issue of limitation in the Plaintiff’s favor.
- 22 January 2026: Applications at Exhibits 71 and 72 were rejected; Exhibit 67 was partially allowed and the issue of limitation was framed.
- 22 January 2026: Applications at Exhibits 22 and 23 remained undecided.
- 4 May 2026: Present Civil Revision Application filed before the Bombay High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant (Defendant No. 2)
- Argued that tenancy rights were lawfully transferred in November 1995 with the consent of the original landlord.
- Contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 66 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the subletting occurred in 1995 and the suit was filed in 2008 - beyond the 12-year period.
- Relied on Bakul Nandlal Gandhi v. Mrs. Smita Pradip Bhatia and Ganpat Ram Sharma v. Gayatri Devi to support the argument that limitation begins from the date of subletting.
- Claimed that his name appearing in the list of "tenants and occupants" in the Deeds of Conveyance conferred tenant status.
- Asserted that the Appellate Court erred by not deciding Applications at Exhibits 22 and 23 for additional evidence and by failing to grant opportunity to lead evidence on the newly framed issue of limitation.
- Argued that the suit was non-maintainable as it was initially filed against a deceased person.
For the Respondent (Plaintiff)
- Maintained that Defendant No. 2 was an unlawful sub-tenant with no legal right to possession.
- Contended that the suit was not barred by limitation because unlawful subletting constitutes a continuing wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the cause of action continues as long as the subletting persists.
- Relied on Shree Durga Trading Co. v. Ateeq Anwar Agboatwal and Ambavi Raghu Patel v. M/s. Ish Homes Pvt. Ltd. to establish that listing a person as "occupant" in conveyance deeds does not confer tenant status.
- Stated that legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 were brought on record before trial, rendering the suit maintainable.
- Argued that the four applications for additional evidence were frivolous, dilatory, and filed in abuse of process.
- Asserted that the Appellate Court was not obligated to remand the matter for evidence on limitation, as it was a pure question of law based on admitted facts.
Relief Sought
The Applicant sought:
- Setting aside of the Appellate Court’s order dated 22 January 2026.
- Remand of the appeal for fresh adjudication, including consideration of Applications at Exhibits 22 and 23.
- Opportunity to lead evidence on the issue of limitation.
- Dismissal of the suit on grounds of limitation and non-maintainability.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether unlawful subletting constitutes a continuing wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, such that the limitation period for filing an eviction suit begins only upon cessation of the subletting, and not from the date of initial subletting.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The Applicant relied on Bakul Nandlal Gandhi v. Mrs. Smita Pradip Bhatia, Ganpat Ram Sharma v. Gayatri Devi, and Shakuntala S. Tiwari v. Hemchand M. Singhania to argue that the cause of action for eviction under Article 66 accrues on the date of unlawful subletting, and limitation runs from that date. He contended that the suit filed in 2008, 13 years after subletting in 1995, was time-barred. He further argued that the Appellate Court violated Order XLI Rule 25 CPC by deciding the issue of limitation without remanding for evidence, and that non-decision of Exhibits 22 and 23 rendered the appeal procedurally defective. He also claimed that his name in the conveyance list conferred tenant status.
For the Respondent/State
The Respondent countered that Shree Durga Trading Co. v. Ateeq Anwar Agboatwal had already held that unlawful subletting is a continuing breach of contract, and limitation begins only when the subletting ends. The Respondent distinguished Bakul Nandlal Gandhi as factually unique, involving a protected sub-tenant under the Bombay Rent Act. He emphasized that the list in the Deeds of Conveyance explicitly included "occupants," and that the Applicant’s name appeared only as an occupant. He further argued that the four applications under Order XLI Rule 27 were dilatory and that the Appellate Court’s refusal to remand on limitation was legally sound, as the issue was purely one of law based on admitted facts.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides: "In case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues."
The Court examined the Supreme Court’s ruling in Balakirshna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, which clarified that a continuing wrong exists only when the wrongful act itself continues to cause injury, not merely when the consequences of a completed act persist. The Court held:
"The very essence of a continuing wrong is that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue."
Applying this to the facts, the Court found that unlawful subletting is not a one-time act but an ongoing violation of the landlord’s rights. The sub-tenant’s continued occupation without consent constitutes a persistent breach of the original tenancy agreement. The Court noted:
"In a case involving subletting, a continuous cause of action would arise so long as the act of subletting continues."
The Court distinguished Bakul Nandlal Gandhi on two grounds: (1) it involved a protected sub-tenant under the Bombay Rent Act, and (2) the court in that case did not consider Section 22 or the precedent in Shree Durga Trading Co. The Court emphasized that Shree Durga Trading Co. had correctly interpreted the law and was binding.
Regarding the procedural objections, the Court held that the Applicant’s filing of four separate applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was an abuse of process. The Court observed:
"The liberty to file application under Order XLI Rule 27 cannot be misused by filing multiple applications as different intervals by seeking to produce more and more material as the Applicant grows wiser with passage of each day."
The Court further held that Order XLI Rule 25 CPC did not mandate remand for the issue of limitation, as it was a pure question of law based on admitted facts - the date of subletting (November 1995) and its continuation until the suit’s filing were undisputed. The Appellate Court was entitled to decide the issue on the record.
The Court also rejected the claim that the suit was non-maintainable, noting that legal heirs were brought on record before adjudication. Finally, the Court held that inclusion of the Applicant’s name in the list of "occupants" in the Deeds of Conveyance did not confer tenant status, as confirmed in Ambavi Raghu Patel and Pradeep Dattatray Gandhi.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Application was dismissed. The Court upheld the Appellate Court’s decree of eviction dated 22 January 2026, confirming that the Applicant must vacate the suit premises immediately. The Court rejected all procedural challenges, held that the suit was not barred by limitation, and found no merit in the Applicant’s claims of tenant status or procedural irregularities. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuous Wrong Doctrine Applies to Unlawful Subletting
- Practitioners must now argue that unlawful subletting is a continuing breach under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and limitation begins only when the subletting ends.
- Landlords can file eviction suits even decades after subletting began, provided the subtenant remains in possession.
- Tenants claiming protection under limitation must prove the subletting ceased more than 12 years ago.
Abuse of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC Will Be Penalized
- Filing multiple, repetitive applications for additional evidence will be viewed as dilatory and an abuse of process.
- Courts may refuse to consider such applications outright and may impose costs.
- Applicants must consolidate all evidence into a single, well-reasoned application under Order XLI Rule 27.
"Occupant" in Conveyance Deeds ≠ Tenant
- Merely listing a person as an "occupant" in conveyance deeds does not confer tenancy rights.
- Rent receipts, payment history, and actual possession are decisive, not administrative lists.
- Practitioners must challenge tenant status based on documentary evidence, not mere inclusion in a schedule.
Limitation Issues May Be Decided Without Remand
- If the issue of limitation is based on undisputed facts, the Appellate Court may decide it directly under Order XLI Rule 24 CPC.
- Remand under Order XLI Rule 25 is not mandatory if the issue is one of law, not fact.
- Courts will not permit litigants to exploit procedural gaps to delay eviction.
