THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHOURITY Vs. THOMAS ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

(2.) The appellant is the 1st the respondent in the writ proceedings instituted by the 1st respondent to the appeal. The 1st respondent was occupying two shop premises of Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (TRIDA). It is not in dispute that he surrendered the premises to the authorities in the year 2004. It is also not in dispute that he was in arrears of rent. In the year 2010, a requisition was filed before the Revenue Recovery Officer constituted under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of arrears of rent which admittedly was for the period prior to 2004. Pursuant to the requisition filed, notices were issued to the writ petitioner only in the year 2014. It is these proceedings that were challenged before the writ court on the ground that the proceedings for recovery were obviously barred by limitation and could not be continued. The learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. Y.R. Kalliyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146], allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) We have considered the facts and heard the learned counsel. In our view the appeal merits no consideration. The Apex Court in the case of Y.R.Kalliyanikutty (supra) has clearly held while dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, that claims which are time barred on the date when a requisition is issued under section 69(2) of the Act are not amounts due under section 71 of the Act and cannot be recovered under the said Act. The Revenue Recovery Act only provides a procedure, which is not substantive law. Thus, time barred debt cannot be recovered through the process of Revenue Recovery Act. This judgment squarely answers the contentions. We may also refer to another judgment of the Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Kalu Ram [AIR 1976 (SC) 1637] wherein similarly the New Delhi Municipal Corporation was seeking to recover rent due through the process of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Apex Court has clearly held that resort to those acts cannot be permitted where the recovery of debt had become barred by limitation. Thus seen, there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.