An appeal against an order must be filed within the period permitted for filing an appeal, and the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned only if there are sufficient reasons to do so.

Headnote:
TENANCY - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 88-B - SECTION 15 - SECTION 29(2) - SECTION 32 TO 32-R - SECTION 31 - APPEAL AGAINST ORDER - LIMITATION - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY - FRAUD - NULLITY OF ORDER - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a landlord, filed a suit against the respondent-tenant seeking to terminate his tenancy and restore possession of land for personal cultivation. The respondent-tenant claimed that he had surrendered his tenancy in favor of the petitioner and that the petitioner had become entitled to possession of the land. The Mamlatdar accepted the surrender and directed delivery of possession to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction against the respondent-tenant to prevent him from disturbing his possession. The respondent-tenant filed an appeal against the Mamlatdar's order, which was allowed by the Collector. The petitioner filed a revision application to the Revenue Tribunal, which upheld the Collector's order.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant was barred by limitation and that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned. The court also held that the Mamlatdar's order was not a nullity and that the respondent-tenant could not challenge it by way of an appeal after any length of time.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned? 3. Whether the Mamlatdar's order was a nullity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An appeal must be filed within the period permitted for filing an appeal, if a party wants to challenge the order passed in appeal. 2. The delay in filing an appeal can be condoned only if there are sufficient reasons to do so. 3. An order is not a nullity merely because a party contends that it is.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and remitted the matter back to the Collector for deciding the question whether an appeal preferred by the tenant could or could not be entertained and if it was delayed, whether the delay in the circumstances should be condoned.

JUDGMENT - R.D. TULPULE, J.:---This petition challenges the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. SS-403/1976, confirming the order passed by the Collector, Sangli, in Tenancy Appeal No. 23 of 1975.

2. Survey No. 119 of Village Padali in Khanpur Tahsil, District Sangli, according to the petitioner, was in his possession, the land belonged to the Datta Devasthan, Vita, a public trust. According to the petitioner, this land was originally leased by a registered lease deed on the 28th of September, 1903 by the predecessor of the respondent-tenant. The respondent was inducted in the land in the year, 1947. Thereafter it is his contention that as the petitioner landlord was a minor, upon his majority, he served a notice upon the tenant on 7th October, 1960 seeking to terminate his tenancy and restoration of possession of land for personal cultivation. He filed that suit on the 17th of November, 1960 before the Tenancy Aval Karkun.

3. During the pendency of that proceeding it appears, another application came to be filed on the 9th June, 1964, which was Tenancy Application No. 47 of 1964. That was an application for possession on the ground that the tenant-respondent had surrendered his tenancy in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner had become entitled on that account to the possession of that land. That proceeding, in appears, transmitted (sic) in an order for possession and acceptance of surrender by the order of the Mamlatdar on the 20th of April, 1965.

4. In the meantime, it appears, that there were other proceedings going on record and documents in respect of which were produced by the respondent-tenant before the Appeal Court. Those were 32(G) proceedings in which an order was passed on the 17th of November, 1960, dropping those proceedings on the ground that the lands were Devasthan lands covered under section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and therefore, sections 32 to 32-R were not applicable. It appears that in that proceeding a statement was recorded of Narhar, a copy of which was also produced. It also appears that a tenancy case was filed being Tenancy Case No. 11 of 1959. It is not clear as to for what purpose that case was filed but was apparently for the purpose of grant of certificate under section 88-C by the landlord Narhar.

5. It appears that during the pendency of the Tenancy Application No. 47 of 1964 it was sought to be ascertained as to whether the landlord's application under section 15 read with section 29(2) for personal cultivation of the lands was pending. It was so found to be pending and, therefore, there was no difficulty apparently felt in accepting surrender of the tenancy by the Mamlatdar, who thereafter having verified and found that the surrender is bona fide, directed delivery of possession of the lands to the landlord Narhar.

6. Though such an order was passed, till 1971 nothing seems to have been place and the order was not executed. It was on 15th of October, 1971 only when the order came to be executed and the petitioner was put in possession. He then filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 38 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge. (Junior Division), Vita praying for an injunction against the respondent-tenant to prevent him from disturbing the possession of the petitioner-landlord. When this injunction was granted against the tenant, he first filed an appeal against the decision which was given on the 20th of April, 1965 before the Collector, Sangli which is Tenancy Appeal No. 23 of 1975. The Collector, Sangli before whom the question as to whether the appeal being barred by time and could not be entertained as no appeal had been preferred against the order dated 20th of April, 1965 was raised. The Collector however, took the view that the order passed by the Tahsildar on the 20th of April, 1965 was a nullity. He held that since the lands were covered by the provisions of section 88 B, sections 32 to 32-R do not apply nor do the provision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document