JUDGMENT - Per DIXIT, J. :

The applicant is the owner of five lands situate in a village, called Sarsa in the Anand Taluka of the Kaira District. Opponent No. 1 to the petition was a tenant of these lands and it is the applicants case that opponent No. 1 sub-let these lands to opponent No. 2 sometime in 1948-49. It is also the applicants case that he came to know of the sub-letting sometime in November, 1955 and so he gave a notice to opponent No. 1 terminating the tenancy. He then filed this application on the 9th May, 1956 to obtain possession from opponents Nos. 1 and 2. Opponent No. I, the tenant, admitted the claim but stated that he and opponent No. 2 were jointly cultivating the lands and giving a crop share to the applicant also jointly. The claim of the applicant was resisted by opponent No. 2.

(2) Upon the evidence adduced before him, the Mamlatdar held that the suit brought by the applicant was barred by time and accordingly the suit came to be dismissed. From the order of dismissal an appeal was filed before the Prant Officer, Anand, and the learned Prant Officer held that the lands were leased out jointly to opponents Nos. 1 and 2 and also that the applicants suit was barred by time. From that order the applicant went in revision before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and a Bench of that Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicants suit was barred by limitation. It is the correctness of this order which has been challenged upon this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3) Before dealing with the question of limitation, it is necessary to point out that the Bombay Revenue Tribunal did not consider the finding recorded by the Prant Officer to the effect that the lands were jointly given to opponents Nos. 1 and 2. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal proceeded upon the footing that they preferred to examine the case of the applicant from the point of view from which he had placed it before the Mamlatdar, namely, that there was sub-letting by opponent No. 1 in favour of opponent No. 2 and that the sole question for decision was one of limitation.

(4) The question of limitation has to be considered from the point of view of S. 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which provides :

"No landlord shall obtain possession of any land or dwelling house held by a tenant except under an order of the Mamlatdar. For obtaining such order he shall make an application in the prescribed form and within a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land or dwelling house, as the case may be, is deemed to have accrued to him." Now, in this case the suit was filed on the 9th May, 1956 and evidently, the sub-letting bad taken place in 1948-49. Mr. D. V. Patel for the applicant contends that the suit is not barred, because limitation would begin to run not from the date of the sub-letting but from the date when he became aware of the sub-letting, which was in November, 1955. Now, the period of limitation prescribed by S. 29(2) is a period of two years and if the starting point of limitation is November, 1955, there can be no doubt that the applicants claim is well within time. But the view which has been taken by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal is that limitation would not begin to run, as has been contended by Mr. D. V. Patel, from the date when, he came to know of the sub-letting but from the time when the sub-letting took place. In other words, the short question is : does limitation begin from 1948-49 or does it begin from November, 1955? If it is the first, there can be no. doubt that the suit is barred by limitation but if limitation begins from November, 1955, there is again no doubt that the suit is well within time. It may be pointed out that the Bombay Revenue Tribunal considered two decisions and they were given in Special Civil Appln. No. 1521 of 1955 D/- 27-9-1956 (Bom) (A), and in Special Civil Appln. No. 198 of 1956 D/- 29-6-1956 (Bom) (B). the. first o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document