http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: KESHEORAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARNARAYAN & ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/02/1977

BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1246            1977 SCR  (3)  14  1977 SCC  (2) 413

ACT:         Constitution  of  India--Article  227--Powers  of  the  High         Court--Bombay  Tenancy    &  Agricultural  Lands   (Vidarbha         Region  and Kutch  Area).Act 1958--Sections 36, 38,  100(2),         132(3)--Recovery of possession.         Berar  Regulation of Agricultural Leases  Act  1951--Section         9A--Minor lessor’s application for possession within 3 years         after attaining majority.

HEADNOTE:             Respondent  No. 1 landlord after his father’s death  and         during his minority let out the agricultural land in dispute         to  the appellant tenant through  his mother for  one  year.         After  the expiry of the lease period the tenant refused  to         deliver  possession of the field.  The mother filed  a  suit         for possession which was dismissed.  Section 9A of the Berar         Regulation  of Agricultural Leases Act 1951 (Madhya  Pradesh         Act No. XXIV of 1951) enables a minor lessor to get  posses-         sion  within  3  years of  his   attaining   majority.   The         landlord, therefore, after attaining majority filed a  peti-         tion for possession:  By order dated 8-8-1955, the  authori-         ties terminated the tenancy under s. 9A(2) of the Berar Act.         It was directed that the landlord shall apply for possession         of  the suit land after 31-3-1956.  Pending the  proceedings         under  s.  9A  the landlord applied for  recovery  of  mesne         profits  or, in the alternative, the lease  amount.   Subse-         quentlY, the landlord filed a suit in the year 1960  against         the  tenant for recovery of mesne profits or for rent  since         the  tenant continued to be on the land.  When the suit  was         pending  the  landlord filed another  application  under  s.         100(2) and s. 36 read with section 38 of the Bombay  Tenancy         and  Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region & Kutch  Area)  Act         1958  (Bombay Act No. XLIX of 1958).  The relief prayed  was         for  a declaration that Kesheorao was not a tenant.  In  the         alternative, the landlord claimed  for relief of  resumption         of  the  suit  filed under section 36(2) and  38(1)  of  the         Tenaney  Act.   The  Tenancy Court took the  view  that  the         tenancy  was  terminated by the order dated  8-8-1955  under         section  9A  of  the Berar Act and that  the  possession  of         Kesheorao thereafter was not in the capacity of a tenant and         allowed the landlord’s claim for possession under s.  132(3)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       of  the Tenancy Act.  The Tribunal reversed the judgment  of         the  Appellate  Authority ,red held that the  tenant  was  a         protected lessee and entitled to enjoy that status under  s.         6  of the Tenancy Act.  The Tribunal held that the  landlord         in  his application under section 36(2) will have to satisfy         the conditions contained in s. 38(3) and (4) of the  Tenancy         Act.  The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the application  of         the landlord for possession.  The High Court in exercise  of         its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution quashed the         order of the Revenue Tribunal and restored the order  passed         by  the  Deputy  Collector.  The High Court  held  that  the         landlord  was  entitled to get possession under s.  36  read         with s. 38 and section 100(2) of the Tenancy Act and direct-         ed the handing over of the possession to the landlord.             In an appeal by Special Leave the tenant contended  that         (1) The landlord took various proceedings on the basis  that         the  appellant  was  a tenant and,  therefore  the  landlord         recognised  or at any rate acquiesced in the tenancy of  the         appellant.             (2) The order passed under s. 9A of the Berar Act cannot         be given effect to under s. 36 of the Tenancy Act.             (3) In any event, the application for possession was not         filed  within two years from the dale of the order for  pos-         session.         Dismissing the appeal by special leave.             HELD:  (1)  After the order dated  7-8-1955  was  passed         under  section 9A of the Berar Act the lease was  terminated         and the appellant ceased to be a         15         tenant.   The status of the appellant as a tenant  was  also         lost  on  the expiry    of the 7 years period  on  31-3-1956         conferred  on  him  under the Berar Act. It  is  clear  from         various  proceedings that the landlord never recognised   or         acquiesced  in the tenancy of the appellant.  The claim  was         for mesne profits or in the alternative for lease and cannot         amount to acquiescing in the tenancy.  Under the Tenancy Act         no  right  has  been conferred on the  appellant  after  his         status as protected tenant came to an end.  The landlord  in         fact made an application for possession within the period of         two years from the date the ’Tenancy Act came into force and         the  application was, therefore, not barred  by  limitation.         [16H, 17A-C, E-F]             (2) The Revenue Tribunal was in error in upsetting   the         order  of  the Appellate Authority to the effect that  after         the  order under s. 9A of the Berar Act was passed the  pos-         session  of  the  appellant was not in the  capacity   of  a         tenant.   The High Court was justified in  interfering  with         the order of the Revenue Tribunal. [17G-H]

JUDGMENT:             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil  Appeal No.  2031 of         1968.             (Appeal  by special leave from the Judgment  and  Decree         dated  1.2.1968 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur  Bench)  in         Special Civil Appeal No. 387 of 1966).             M.  N.  Phadke, V.M. Phadke and A.G.  Ratnaparkhi,   for         the appellant.             Sharad  Manohar, Suresh Sethi  and B.P. Maheshwari,  for         respondents.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             KAILASAM,  J.   This appeal arise out of  special  leave         granted by this Court against the judgment and order of  the         High Court of Judicature Bombay at Nagpur.  For  convenience

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       sake  we will refer to the appellant as the tenant  and  the         respondent No. 1 as the landlord because the history of  the         litigation  is 25 years old and the parties had resorted  to         various remedies before various Tribunals.             The dispute relates to Field Survey No. 6 area 15  acres         23  gunthas  in  village Gangaon.   Jodhraj  the  father  of         Narnarayan,   the   landlord before us, died  some  time  in         1942.  Narnarayan who was then a minor became the owner  and         his   widowed  mother  Trivenibai leased the land on  behalf         of  the  minor to Kesheorao, the tenant before us,  for  one         year.  After the expiry of the lease on 31st January,  1952,         the  tenant refused to deliver possession of the field.  The         mother  filed the suit, Suit No. 125-A of 1952  for  posses-         sion.   The  suit as well as further proceedings by  way  of         appeal  land  second  appeal failed and the tenant was  held         to  be  protected  lessee for a period of  five  years  from         1951-52.             Availing  himself of the benefit of section 9-A  of  the         Berar  Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act Madhya  Pradesh         Act 24/51 which enabled the minor to get possession within 3         years of his attaining majority he filed a petition for  it.         By an order dated 8th August, 1955 the Sub-Divisional  Offi-         cer found that Narnarayan is entitled to terminate the lease         of the tenant Kesheorao and ordered that lease of         16         Kesheorao  is terminated under section ’9A(2) of  the  Berar         Regulation  of Agricultural Leases Act and  further  ordered         under  that section that Narnarayan shall apply for  posses-         sion  of the suit filed after 31stMarch, 1956.   This  order         admittedly  became  final.  Pending  the  proceedings  under         section  9-A  the  landlord applied for  recovery  of  mesne         profits  or in the alternative for lease amount.  The  land-         lord subsequently filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 1960 against the         tenant for recovery of mesne profits or for rent.  The  suit         was  necessitated because the tenant continued to be on  the         land.  The claim was for mesne profits or for lease  amount.         When this case was pending the landlord filed another appli-         cation under section 100(2) and section 36 read with section         33 of the  Bombay  Tenancy  Act, 1953.  (Vidharba Region and         Kutch  area).  The relief prayed for was for  a  declaration         that  Kesheorao  was not a tenant.  In the  alternative  the         landlord claimed for relief of resumption of the suit  filed         under  sections 36(2) and 38(1) of the Bombay  Tenancy  Act.         The tenancy suits. and the landlord’s application were  also         prolonged  and ultimately the appellate authority  took  the         view  that  the tenancy was terminated by  order  dated  8th         August,  1955 under section ’9-A of the Berar Regulation  of         Agricultural  Leases Act and that his possession  thereafter         was not in the capacity of a tenant and therefore set  aside         the order dated 30th September, 1963 and allowed the   land-         lord’s   claim  for possession under section 132(3)  of  the         Bombay  Tenancy  and  Agricultural  Lands  Act,  1958.   The         tenant  took up the matter to the Revenue  Tribunal,  Nagpur         and  the Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the  Appel-         late authority holding that the tenant was protected  lessee         and  entitled  to enjoy that status under section 6  of  the         Tenancy  Act.   Holding that the landlord  in  his  petition         under  section  36(2)  will have to  satisfy  the  condition         contained  in section 38(3) and (4) of the’ Tenancy Act  the         Revenue Tribunal decided that the landlord was not  entitled         to  that  relief.   Aggrieved by the order  of  the  Revenue         Tribunal  the landlord filed the writ petition out of  which         this appeal arises before the Nagpur High Court under  Arti-         cle  227 of the Constitution praying that the order  of  the         Revenue Tribunal’ may be quashed and the order passed by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

       Special  Deputy Collector may be restored.  The  High  Court         allowed  the  writ petition setting aside the order  of  the         Revenue  Tribunal.  The High Court held that the  petitioner         was  entitled to get possession under section 36  read  with         section  38 and section 100(2)  of  the Bombay  Tenancy  Act         and directed that the possession will be given to the  land-         lord after the crops of the year 1967-68 are removed.             It is unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to  go         into  the various proceedings between the landlord  and  the         tenant.   For the purpose of decision of this appeal  it  is         sufficient to state that the landlord who was a minor  filed         a  petition  under section 9-A of the  Berar  Regulation  of         Agricultural Leases Act and obtained an order from the  Sub-         Divisional Officer on 8th August, 1955 terminating the lease         of the tenant and directing that  the landlord shall   apply         for  possession  of the field on 31st March,   1956.   After         7th   August 1955 when the lease was terminated’ the  tenant         ceased to be a tenant         17         Equally the status of the tenant was lost by Kesheorao  when         the protected tenancy came to an end with the expiry of  the         7th years’ period conferred on him under the Berar Act.  The         result was  that the tenancy rights of Kesheorao were put an         end  to  by the order dated 8th August, ’1955  and  whatever         rights he might have had under the Berar Act came to an  end         on   31st   March,   1956.  The  only ground  on  which  the         rights  of a tenant are claimed is that ’after  31st  March,         1956  and after 31st March, 1958 though his  tenancy  rights         expired  he continued to be a tenant because he was in  pos-         session  and various proceedings were taken by the  landlord         on  the  basis that he was a tenant.  This  plea  cannot  be         accepted.  It is seen from  the various proceedings that the         landlord  never recognised or acquiesced in the  tenancy  of         Kesheorao.  The landlord claimed for mesne profits or alter-         natively  for lease amount.  The claim was not based on  the         landlord  acquiescing  in the tenancy.  We have  been  taken         through the relevant provision of the Bombay Tenancy Act but         there  is  no provision by which any right as  a  tenant  is         conferred on Kesheorao after his status as protected  tenant         expired.   In this view the tenant ceased to have any  right         after 31st March, 1958, up to which time he could,  continue         due  to  an amendment in the Act and, if he had  managed  to         continue in possession it was in spite of the landlord.             The  objection that is taken by the learned counsel  for         the  tenant is that the order which is made on  8th  August,         1955  under  section 9-A cannot be given  effect  to  except         under  the  provisions of section 36 of the  Bombay  Tenancy         Act.   It was also submitted that in any event the  applica-         tion  had not been filed within two years from the  date  of         the order for possession.  It was brought to our notice that         the landlord did make an  application on 11th  January, 1960         for possession within two years from the date of the  Bombay         Act coming into force and as such it is not barred by  limi-         tation.   The applicability or otherwise of  section  132(2)         and  (3)  was vehemently argued, but, in the  view  we  have         taken, it is unnecessary to go into that question.  We  find         that  the tenant ceased to have any right after 31st  March,         1958  and  did not acquire any rights  subsequently  by  the         landlord acquiescing in the tenancy. While the tenant had no         fight  the landlord had obtained an order under section  9-A         terminating the lease of the tenant and directing the  land-         lord  to  apply for possession of the field on  31st  March,         19’56.   The  landlord had in fact  applied  for  possession         after  we are also.  informed that the   landlord   obtained         possession as early as 18th February, 1968.  In the  circum-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       stances  we  do not feel called upon to interfere  with  the         decision  of  the High Court holding that  the  landlord  is         entitled  to  get possession.  The Revenue Tribunal  was  in         error in upsetting the order of the appellate authority that         the tenancy was terminated by the Sub-Divisional Officer  on         8th  August,  1955 under section 9-A of the leases  Act  and         that his possession thereafter was not in the capacity of  a         tenant.  The High Court was therefore justified in interfer-         ing,  with  the  order of the Revenue Tribunal.  We  see  no         ground for interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the         High  Court and dismiss this appeal.  In  the  circumstances         the parties will bear their own costs.         P.H.P.                                         Appeal   dis-         missed.         18