KESHEORAO versus NARNARAYAN & ANOTHER

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 17-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, A.C. GUPTA, P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
14 
KESHEORAO 
v. 
NARNARA YAN & ANOTHER 
February 17, 1977 
[M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 227-Powers of the High Court-·Bon1bay 
Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vldarbha 
Region and 
Kutch 
Area). Act 
1958-Sections 36. 38. 100(2). 132(3)-Recovery of possession. 
Berar Regulation of AKricultural Leases Act 1951-Section 9A--!1!fi11or 
lessor's avvlication for possession within 3 years after attaining 111ajority. 
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 possess.ion of the field. 
The mother filed a suit for possession \vhich 
v.-as 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 possession within 3 years of his 
attaining 
n1ajority. 
The 
landlord, 
therefore, after attaining majority filed a petition for possession .. _ By order 
dated 8-8-1955, the authorities 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 
an1ount. 
Subsequently, the landlord filed a '>Uit 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 anothe-r appli-
cation under s. 100(2) and s. 36 read with secti0n 38 of the Bombay 'fenancy 
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region & Kutch Area) Act 1958 (Bom-
bay Act No. XLIX of 1958). The relief prayed was for a declaration t11at 
Kesheorao was -ilot a tenant. In the alternative, the landlord claimed 
for 
relief of resumrtion of the suit filed under sectio(l 36(2) and 38(1) of the 
Tenancy Act. 
The Tenancy Court took the vie\v that the tenancy was termi-
nated by the order dated 8-8-1955 under section 9A of the Berar 1\ct and 
that the possession of Kesheorao thereafter was not in the caoacity of a tenant 
and allowed the landlord's claim for possession under s. 132(3) of the Ten-
ancy Act. The Tribunal reversed the judgment of the Appellate Authority 
and held that the tenant was a protected Jessee and entitled to enjoy that status 
under s. 6 of the Tenancy Act. 
The Tribunal held that the landlord in his 
application under _sectioni 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 Jligh Court in exercise 
of its powers Under Article 227 of the Constitution quashed the order of the 
llevenue Tribunal and restored the order passed by the Deputy Co1lector. 
The 
High Court h~Jd that the landlord was entitled to get possession under s. 36 read 
withs. 38 and section 100(2) of the Tenancy .!\ct and directed 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 appeJlant \Vas 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 J1erar Act cannot be given effect 
to lh'lder s. 36 of the Tenancy Act. 
(3) In any event, the application for possession \vas not filed within t\VO 
yenrs from the date of the order for possession. 
DismissinJ:! the appeal bv special leave. 
HELD: (1) After the order dated 7-8-1955 \vas passed under section 9A 
of the Beror Act the lease was terminated nnd the appellant ceased to be n 
•
.¥
KESHEORAO v. NARNARAYAN (Kailasam, J.) 
15 
tenant. 
The status ·Of the appellant as a tenant was also lost on the expiry 
.of the 7 years neriod on 31-3-1956 conferred on him under the Berar Act. 
It is clear from various proceedings that the landlonl never recognised 
or 
-acquiesced in the tenancy of the appellant. 
The claim was for n1esne profits 
-0r in the alternative for lease and cannot amount to acquiescing in the ten-
ancy. 
Under the Tenancy Act no right has been conferred on the appellant 
.after his status as protected tenant came to an end. 'fhe landlord in fact made 
an application for possession within the period
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.