Civil Appeal No 988 of 1968
From the Judgment and order dated the 8 4 1965 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench Delhi now the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ No 228 G of 1962
Hardyal Hardy B P Maheshwari Suresh Sethi and Bikaramjit Nayar for the appellant
A K Sen D P Bhandare Mrs Laxmi Arvind Mathur and section section Khanduja for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA J
Respondent Kalu Ram was pavement vendor in Connaught place New Delhi
In 1950 the appellant
New Delhi Municipal Committee provided a number of displaced persons with small pre fabricated stalls to enable them to do their business
Kalu 88 Ram who was also a displaced person was allotted one such stall on Irwin Road
Rupees thirty was the licencee fee payable per month by the allottees of these stalls
Later the allottees including the respondent applied to the Rent Controller for reducing the rent
It is not necessary to refer to the various proceedings arising from these applications for fixation of standard rent which were ultimately dismissed by the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi as not maintainable
In the meantime many of the allottees fell in arrears in paying the licence fees
So far as the respondent is concerned the appellant took no steps to recover the dues till December 1960 when it demanded the entire amount in arrears from May 1950 to April 1957
The respondent not having paid the appellant asked the Estate Officer appointed under section 3 of the  to take steps to recover the amount in arrears under section 7 of that Act
The Estate Officer who is the second respondent herein made an order on September 28 1961 under section 71 of the Act asking the respondent to pay the sum overruling his objection that the claim was barred by limitation
The respondent s appeal to the Additional District Judge from the Estate Officer s order was disallowed
The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi challenging the order against him
One of the grounds of challenge was that section 7 could not be resorted to for recovery of the sum as the claim was time barred
The High Court accepted the contention and allowed the petition
In this appeal by certificate the appellant New Delhi Municipal Committee questions the correctness of the High Court s decision
The only contention raised before us by Mr Hardy appearing for the appellant is that the High Court was wrong in holding that the amount in question could not be recovered under section 7 because the time for instituting a suit to recover the sum had expired
Admittedly any suit instituted on the date when the Estate Officer made his order under section 71 would have been barred by time
Mr Hardy argued that the Limitation Act only barred the remedy by way of suit and did not extinguish the right and section 7 of the providing a different and special mode of recovery was therefore available to recover rent in arrears beyond three years
Section 7 as it stood at the relevant time reads  Power to recover rent or damages in respect of public premises as arrears of land revenue
1 Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises the estate officer may by order require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order
2 Where any person is or has at any time been in unauthorised occupation of any public premises the 89 estate officer may having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may by order require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order Provided that no such order shall be made until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why such order should not be made and until his objections if any and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the estate officer
3 If any person refuses or fails to pay the arrears of rent or any instalments thereof payable under sub section 1 or the damages or any instalment thereof payable under sub section 2 within the time specified in the order relating thereto the estate officer may issue a certificate for the amount due to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same as an arrear of land revenue
 As would appear from the terms of the section it provides a summary procedure for the recovery of arrears of rent
It was argued that since section 7 did not put a time limit for taking steps under that section and as the limitation prescribed for a suit to recover the amount did not apply to a proceeding under this section the High Court was in error in upholding the respondent s objection
In support of his contention that a debt remained due though barred by limitation Mr Hardy relied on a number of authorities both Indian and English
We do not consider it necessary to refer to these decisions because the proposition is not disputed that the statute of limitation bars the remedy without touching the right
Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 which was in force at the relevant time however provided that the right to any property was extinguished on the expiry of the period prescribed by the Act for instituting a suit for possession of the property
But on the facts of this case no question of a suit for possession of any property arises and section 28 has no application
It is not questioned that a creditor whose suit is barred by limitation if he has any other legal remedy permitting him to enforce his claim would be free to avail of it
But the question in every such case is whether the particular statute permits such a course
Does section 7 of the create a right to realise arrears of rent without any limitation of time  Under section 7 the Estate Officer may order any person who is in arrears of rent payable  in respect of any public premises to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as he may specify in the order
Before however the order is made a notice must issue calling upon the defaulter to show cause way such order should not he made and if he raised any objection the Estate Officer must consider the same and the evidence produced in support of it
Thus the Estate Officer has to determine 90 upon hearing the objection the amount of rent in arrears which is payable  The word payable  is somewhat indefinite in import and its meaning must he gathered from the context in which it occurs
Payable  generally means that which should be paid
If the person in arrears raises a dispute as to the amount the Estate Officer in determining the amount payable cannot ignore the existing laws
If the recovery of any amount is barred by the law of limitation it is difficult to hold that the Estate Officer could still insist that the said amount was payable
When a duty is cast on an authority to determine the arrears of rent the determination must be in accordance with law
Section 7 only provides a special procedure for the realisation of rent in arrears and does not constitute a source or foundation of a right to claim a debt otherwise time barred
Construing the expression any money due in section 186 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 the Privy Council held in Hans Raj Gupta and others vs Official Liquidators of the Dehradun Mussorie Electric Tramway Company Ltd1 that this meant moneys due and recoverable in suit by the company and observed it is a section which creates a special procedure for obtaining payment of moneys it is not a section which purports to create a foundation upon which to base a claim for payment
It creates no new rights
 We are clear that the word payable in section 7 in the context in which its occurs means legally recoverable Admittedly a suit to recover the arrears instituted on the day the order under section 7 was made would have been barred by limitation
The amount in question was therefore irrecoverable
This being the position the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
MR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
In 1950 the appellant allotted small pre fabricated stalls to several displaced persons including the respondent at the licence fee of rupee thirty payable per month
Later these allottees applied for a fixation of standard rent but ultimately lost in the Punjab High Court at Delhi Meanwhile the respondent fell in arrears in paying the licence fee
In December 1960 the appellant demanded from him the entire amount in arrears from May 1950 to April 1957 but he failed to pay
In September 1961 the Estate Officer ordered the respondent under section 71 of the Act to pay the sum overruling his objection that the claim was barred by limitation
The respondent s appeal to the Additional District Judge was rejected but the Punjab High Court at Delhi allowed his writ petition on the ground that section 7 could not be availed in case of time barred claims
The appellant contended before this Court that the Limitation Act only barred the remedy by way of suit and did not extinguish the right which could still be exercised through section 7 of the Act
Section 7 did not put a time limit for taking action under it and was therefore not subject to the limitation prescribed for a suit to recover the amount
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD Section 7 only provides a special procedure for the realisation of rent in arrears and does not constitute a source or foundation of a right to claim a debt otherwise time barred
The word payable in Section 7 in the context in which it occurs means legally recoverable
90 B  D Hans Raj Gupta and others vs Official Liquidator of the Dehradun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co Ltd 60 IA 13 followed