The provisions of section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act and section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are not applicable to the enforcement of court orders.

Headnote:
TENANCY - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 25, 29, 14 - BOMBAY GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1904 - SECTION 11 - MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE CODE, 1966 - SECTION 202 - Default in payment of rent - Deposit of arrears within time fixed by court - Applicability of section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act - Tender of amount to landlord - Applicability of section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a tenant, defaulted on rent payments for three years. The landlords initiated proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, culminating in an order by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears within three months. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time and the landlords filed an application for execution of the order.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's failure to deposit the arrears within the time fixed by the court was a material breach of the order and justified the landlords' application for execution. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments that the provisions of section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, which allows for an extension of time when a deadline falls on a holiday, were applicable to the case, as the order was passed by the court and not by a legislative act. The court also held that section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which allows for payment on a subsequent day if the due date is a holiday, was irrelevant as it applies specifically to the realization of land revenue and not to the enforcement of court orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, which allows for an extension of time when a deadline falls on a holiday, are applicable to an order passed by a court under section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act? 2. Whether section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which allows for payment on a subsequent day if the due date is a holiday, is applicable to the enforcement of court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act is applicable only to acts or proceedings directed or allowed to be done or taken by an Act of the Legislature and not by an order of the Court. 2. Section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is applicable only to the realization of land revenue and other revenue demands and not to the enforcement of court orders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears within three months. The court also awarded costs to the landlords.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This petition need not be treated with any exaggerated respect because it is by a tenant who has been guilty of default in the payment of arrears of rent not only under the contract of lease but also under the orders of the Court. The respondents are the landlords and the petitioner is the tenant of two lands together measuring 7 acres 2 gunthas situated at village Atogaon in Radhanagari Tahsil of Kolhapur District. Admittedly the suit lands are leased to the petitioner for the cultivation of sugar-cane. He committed default in the payment of rent for three years, namely 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1970-71. The proceedings under section 29 read with sections 14 and 25 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act", were taken by the respondents and ultimately they culminated in the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal of Kolhapur in Revision Application No. MRT.KP. 126/76 passed on 15th February, 1977. By the said order the Revenue Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2419.18 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 590.22 paid by him to the landlords within 3 months from the date of the order. In the event of failure of such payment, self-operative direction was given that the tenant shall be evicted from the land and the possession of the land shall be restored to the landlords.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited this amount within 3 months from the date of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. He deposited in the Government treasury the amount on 16th May, 1977 which has been found by the three authorities below to be two days later then the date on which he was to pay the amount. The respondents, therefore, filed an application, being Misc. Tenancy Application No. 5/77, for execution of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The facts of the litigation and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were set out in details by the respondents in their application. The petitioner filed a written statement in which he contended, among other things, that he had gone to the second respondent to pay the amount but the amount was not accepted. The landlord examined himself on oath and denied that the petitioner had come to him for paying the amount on 9th May, 1977. The petitioner did not examine himself on oath.

3. The Tahsildar of Radhanagari by his judgment and order dated 7th June, 1977 directed that the possession of the lands be restored to the respondents. This order was confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Shahuwadi Division of Kolhapur by his judgment and order dated 30th August, 1977 in Tenancy Appeal No. 70 of 1977 preferred by the petitioner. This order was further confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its detailed judgment given on 29th April, 1978 in Revision Application No. MRT.KP. 340/77 which is now the subject-matter of challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. It had been urged in the courts below that though the amount was to be deposited on or before 14th May, 1977, the same could not be done because 14th May, 1977 was holiday being Second Saturday of the month and 15th was also a holiday being Sunday. The amount thus deposited on 16th May, 1977 should be held to have been deposited within the time ordered by the Court in view of the provisions contained in section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. This contention has been rejected by the authorities below and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has in my opinion given correct reasons for the same. Mr. Gole has urged the same point with some persistence. I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention on behalf of the petitioner that section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act is applicable to the facts of this case. Section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act provides that where, by any Bombay Act or Maharashtra Act made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1982 Supreme(Bom) 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYR.A. Jahagirdar, J.Khando Ganesh Kulkarni.... Petitioner.VersusBando Ramchandra Mujumdar others.... Respondents. Special Civil Application No. 1508 of 1978, decided on 15-1-1982.Advocates appeared :H.D. Gole, for petitioner.K.J. Abhyanker, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

The provisions of section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act and section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are not applicable to the enforcement of court orders.