Bombay High Court Rules Unlawful Subletting is a "Continuing Breach" Under Limitation Law, Slamming Procedural Tactics Used by Tenants to Delay Eviction for Decades.
The Indian judicial system is often criticized for the "law's delay", particularly in landlord-tenant disputes where eviction proceedings can span decades. A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court in Ratnadeep Shankar Narkar v. M/s. Ish Homes Private Limited offers a masterclass in how courts are beginning to see through sophisticated "procedural flooding" tactics. The case, which reached the High Court nearly 18 years after the initial suit was filed, clarifies critical aspects of the Limitation Act and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) that every property lawyer and litigant should understand.
The "Continuing Breach" Doctrine: A Shield for LandlordsPerhaps the most impactful takeaway from this judgment is the court's stance on the limitation period for filing an eviction suit based on unlawful subletting. The tenant argued that since the alleged subletting began in 1995, the suit filed in 2008 was barred by the 12-year limitation period prescribed under Article 66 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
However, the High Court invoked Section 22 of the Limitation Act, which deals with "continuing breaches". The court reasoned that unlawful subletting is not a one-time event but a continuous wrong that creates a fresh period of limitation at every moment the breach continues. This is a significant shift that prevents sub-tenants from "legalizing" their status simply by staying under the radar for 12 years.
"In a case involving subletting, a continuous cause of action would arise so long as the act of subletting continues."Curbing the "Application Spree": Procedural Discipline
The judgment takes a stern view of litigants who "flood" the court with multiple applications to stall proceedings. In this case, the applicant filed five separate applications during the appeal stage, four of which were for producing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. When the Appellate Court failed to pass specific orders on two of them, the applicant sought a remand of the entire case.
The High Court dismissed this as an abuse of process. It emphasized that the liberty to file for additional evidence is an exceptional provision, not a routine right. By filing applications at intervals as they "grew wiser", the applicant was found to be strategically creating grounds for future appeals rather than seeking justice.
The Myth of Mandatory RemandA common tactical maneuver in Indian litigation is to demand that a case be sent back (remanded) to the Trial Court whenever a new issue is framed by the Appellate Court. The applicant argued that under Order XLI Rule 25, the Appellate Court was required to refer the new issue of limitation back to the Trial Court for evidence.
The High Court clarified that this is not a mandatory rule. Under Order XLI Rule 24, if the evidence already on record is sufficient, the Appellate Court can—and should—decide the issue itself to avoid further delay. This reinforces the principle that appellate courts have the power to finalise disputes rather than acting as mere post offices.
"Occupant" vs. "Tenant": The Conveyance Deed TrapThe applicant tried to claim the status of a lawful tenant because his name appeared in a list attached to the Deeds of Conveyance when the new landlord bought the property. The court noted that the list referred to both "tenants" and "occupants".
The court held that mere reflection of a name in a commercial document between a buyer and seller does not elevate an illegal sub-tenant to the status of a protected tenant. Tenancy is a legal status that requires specific proof of induction or attornment, not just a mention in a schedule of occupants.
"Mere reflection of names of the occupants in the lists appended to the Conveyance Deeds does not elevate the occupants to the status of tenants."Conclusion: A Message to Dilatory Litigants
This judgment serves as a stern warning against using the CPC as a tool for attrition. By refusing to stay the eviction and dismissing the revision, the Bombay High Court signaled that the "interest of justice" includes the timely resolution of disputes. For landlords, it provides a clearer path to recovery of possession, ensuring that the clock on limitation doesn't run out as long as the illegal occupation persists.
Case: RATNADEEP SHANKAR NARKAR v. ISH HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
Law: Code of Civil Procedure, Limitation Act, Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Transfer of Property Act.
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:21060
Decision Date: 04-05-2026