A tenant who fails to take action against the persons in possession under section 32 of the Tenancy Act within the period stipulated thereunder cannot file an application under section 98 of the Tenancy Act to overcome the bar of limitation prescribed by section 32.

Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - SECTION 19(1), 32, 50(B), 98 - RES JUDICATA - SALE DEED - COMPROMISE - LIMITATION - BONA FIDE PURCHASER - SURRENDER OF RIGHTS - SECTION 38(E) - SECTION 38(6) - SALE CERTIFICATE - CONDUCT OF TENANT - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - The court held that the original tenant's application under section 98 of the Tenancy Act against the present petitioners was mala fide and filed to overcome the bar of limitation prescribed by section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The court also held that the compromise entered into by the original tenant and the subsequent withdrawal of the petition under section 98 filed against Shivaji and Mandakini operated as res judicata between the original tenant and the present petitioners. The court further held that the sale deeds executed by the original tenant in favor of Shivaji and Mandakini were not hit by the provisions of section 50-B of the Tenancy Act. The court also held that the sale certificate issued by the competent authority under section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act in favor of the protected tenant could not be accepted in the peculiar circumstances of the case, particularly when the conduct of the original tenant was found to be totally dishonest.
Fact of the Case:

The original tenant, Sk. Hussain, filed an application under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Tenancy Act) before the Deputy Collector, Land Records, Jalna, claiming that he was a protected tenant of the land in question and that he was forcibly evicted from the land by the previous owner, Raosaheb Deshmukh, in 1964-65. The Deputy Collector rejected the application, holding that the tenant had lost his tenancy rights. The tenant appealed to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), which allowed the appeal and restored the tenant's possession of the land. The present petitioners, who had purchased the land from Shivaji and Mandakini Deshmukh, filed a petition in the High Court challenging the MRT's order.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the MRT's order was perverse and set it aside. The court held that the tenant's application under section 98 was mala fide and filed to overcome the bar of limitation prescribed by section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The court also held that the compromise entered into by the original tenant and the subsequent withdrawal of the petition under section 98 filed against Shivaji and Mandakini operated as res judicata between the original tenant and the present petitioners. The court further held that the sale deeds executed by the original tenant in favor of Shivaji and Mandakini were not hit by the provisions of section 50-B of the Tenancy Act. The court also held that the sale certificate issued by the competent authority under section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act in favor of the protected tenant could not be accepted in the peculiar circumstances of the case, particularly when the conduct of the original tenant was found to be totally dishonest.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant's application under section 98 of the Tenancy Act was mala fide and filed to overcome the bar of limitation prescribed by section 32 of the Tenancy Act? 2. Whether the compromise entered into by the original tenant and the subsequent withdrawal of the petition under section 98 filed against Shivaji and Mandakini operated as res judicata between the original tenant and the present petitioners? 3. Whether the sale deeds executed by the original tenant in favor of Shivaji and Mandakini were hit by the provisions of section 50-B of the Tenancy Act? 4. Whether the sale certificate issued by the competent authority under section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act in favor of the protected tenant could be accepted in the peculiar circumstances of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tenant's application under section 98 was mala fide and filed to overcome the bar of limitation prescribed by section 32 of the Tenancy Act because the tenant had failed to take any action against the persons in possession under section 32 of the Tenancy Act within the period stipulated thereunder and then after having lost the right to take the action under section 32 he initiated proceedings under section 98 which do not apparently provide any period of limitation. 2. The court held that the compromise entered into by the original tenant and the subsequent withdrawal of the petition under section 98 filed against Shivaji and Mandakini operated as res judicata between the original tenant and the present petitioners because the original application under section 98 filed against Shivaji and Mandakini was in respect of the same land (which is the subject-matter of the application under section 98 against the present petitioners and further because the present petitioners are purchasers from Shivaji and Mandakini. 3. The court held that the sale deeds executed by the original tenant in favor of Shivaji and Mandakini were not hit by the provisions of section 50-B of the Tenancy Act because the section does not apply to the sale of land by a tenant before purchasing it under any of the provisions specified in the section. 4. The court held that the sale certificate issued by the competent authority under section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act in favor of the protected tenant could not be accepted in the peculiar circumstances of the case, particularly when the conduct of the original tenant was found to be totally dishonest.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the MRT's order, and restored the order of the Deputy Collector dismissing the tenant's application under section 98.

JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard, Mr.V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Suresh Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondents.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as under.

3. The subject-matter of a petition in Survey No. 45 admeasuring 8.36 acres now gut No. 72 and Survey No. 29 admeasuring 12.36 acres now gut No. 59 situated at village Rajegaon, Tq. Ambad, District Jalna. This land was owned by one Sakharam Bhimrao Deshpande. The respondent was the tenant of the said land. He sold the lands to Shivaji Raosaheb Deshmukh and Mandakini w/o Dattaji Deshmukh by sale deed dated 7-5-1966 copies of which are filed at Exhibit "C". Both these lands were thereafter purchased by the present petitioners on 26-2-1968 vide sale deeds at Exhibit "D" for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in all. It appears from the record that the original tenant was one Sk. Hussain s/o Sk. Farid and after his death during the proceedings his LRs. have been brought on record.

4. The original tenant filed application on 17-1-1985 under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act before the Deputy Collector, Land Records, Jalna on the ground that he was a protected tenant of Sakharam Bhimrao Deshpande that he was declared owner under section 38(E) of the Tenancy Act in the year 1956. But he was forcibly evicted from those lands by Raosaheb Deshmukh in 1964-65. It was also his case that he had filed suit for restoration and possession against said Deshmukh under section 98, however, under their pressure, he was required to compromise the matter and surrender his rights in favour of the said Deshmukh. According to him, the present petitioners who had purchased land from Shivaji and Mandakini Deshmukh do not get any legal right in respect of the land and the sale deed executed by Shivaji and Mandakini Deshmukh in favour of the present petitioner is illegal and invalid.

5. The Deputy Collector decided the case against respondent holding that the respondent had lost his tenancy rights and rejected the respondent's application under section 98. The original respondent thereafter filed appeal before the M.R.T. This appeal was allowed by the M.R.T. on 11-9-1989 vide Appeal No. 16/A/88 of Jalna. The petitioners have filed present petition against the said order of the M.R.T.

6. I heard both the advocates for the petitioner and the respondent at length. It was contended by Mr. Salunke that original respondent had no right to file application under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act of 1950) firstly because even if the original respondent was the tenant he has sold his lands to Shivaji and Mandakini Deshmukh on 7-5-1968 and has lost his possession since that date. Further the petitioners have purchased the lands by sale deed dated 26-2-1968 and are in continuous possession thereof. Mr. Salunke contended that petitioners are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and the sale deeds in their favour or the earlier sale deed in favour of Deshmukh were not illegal for any reason whatsoever. Further, according to Mr. Salunke, original respondent's application under section 98 was filed after 19 years of the first sale deed and 17 years of the second sale deed and no reasons were given by the respondent why he remained silent for such a long time of about 2 decades.

7. Mr. Salunke further contended that the original respondent-tenant had filed application under section 98 against Mr. Deshmukh, his purchasers but in that matter, the original respondent entered into compromise, filed the compromise before the competent Court and surrendered his rights in favour of his purchasers Mr. Deshmukh and therefore, according to Mr. Salunke, the respondent having surrendered his rights in favour of Deshmukh, the petitioner's sale deeds from Shivaji and Mandakini Deshmukh were perfectly legal and they were required to be recognised. It was also contended by Mr. Salunke that the only obje

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis