SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE AND OTHERS versus MILLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 25-09-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

z959 
Septembet' a5. 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
MILLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPATIRUMALE 
(S. R. DAS, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Writ of certiorari-Error apparent on the face of the record-
T ermination of t<nancy--Question of necessity of notice to ltssee-
Revenue Tribunal's decision reversed by High Court-Legality-
Constitution of India, Art. 227. 
The respondent made an application to the Revenue Court 
for delivery of possession from his tenant, the appellant, on the 
footing that the latter failed to pay the rent for three consecutive 
years and so was entitled to get pos;ession from him as per the 
terms of the lease. The appellant pleaded inter alia that the 
respondent was not entitled to an order for possession as he had 
not given notice that he was entitled to obtain possession of the 
same under the rent agreement and that he had terminated the 
tenancy. The Revenue Court made an order in favour of the 
respondent but, on appeal, the Collector set aside the order. The 
Collector's order was confirmed by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal 
which took the view that the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural 
Lands Act, 1948, was applicable to the lands in question but that . 
the respondent must fail because he had failed to terminate the 
tenancy by notice before taking proceedings for ejectment. The 
respondent then applied to the High Court of Bombay under 
Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that it might 
eicercise its power of superintendence over the Bombay Revenue 
Tribunal and set aside its order. The High Court was of the 
opinion that the Tribunal had committed an error which was 
apparent on the face ol the rec0rd in holding that an order of 
possession could no~ be made unless a notice terminating the 
tenancy had been given before the institution of proceedings and, 
accordingly, it quashed the order of the Tribunal and restored 
that of the Revenue Court. The question was whether there was 
an error apparent on the face of the judgment of the Bombay 
Revenue Tribunal which the High Court could quash by issuing 
a writ of certiorari. 
In order to decide whether it was necessary 
for the landlord to give notice to the lessee of his intention to 
determine the lease, the relevant provisions of the Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948, and the Transfer of Property, 
1882, had to be considered and the rival contentions of the 
parties showed that the point was far from being self evident 
and could be established only by lengthy and complicated 
arguments. 
S.O.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
891 
Held, that the High Court was wrong in thinking th.at the 
alleged error in the judgment of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal 
was one apparent on the face of the record so as to be capable of 
being corrected by a writ of certiorari. 
An error which has to be established by a long drawn porcess 
of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two 
opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the 
record. 
Hari Vishnu K·1math v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque, [1955] I S.C.R. 
no4, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
189of1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated August 26, 1952, of the Bombay High 
Court, in Civil Application No. 319 of 1952. 
Purshottam Tricumdas and N aunit Lal, for the 
appellants. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. S. K. Sastri, for the 
respondent. 
1959. September 25. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
I959 
Satyanarayan 
Laxminarayan 
Hegde 
v. 
Millikarjun 
Bhavanappa 
Tirumale 
DAS GUPTA J.--"-On August 22, 1949, the respondent 
Das Gupta J 
made an application in the Revenue Court of the 
Mamlatdar of Sirsi, District Kanara, praying for deliv-
ery of possession of property which the appellant was 
on tha.t date possessing as the tenant under him, on 
the basis of a "Mulegeni" deed executed by the res-
pondent's predecessor-in-interest in favour of the 
appellant's predecessor-in-interest. One of the terms 
of the lease was that if rent for three consecutive years 
fell in arrears the Mulegeni right will .be void and the 
lessee should hand ov~r possession of the property to 
the lessor. In .the application made in the Mamlatdar's 
Court the respondunt based his claim for possession on 
this express condition in the lease as also on an alleged 
termination by him of the tenancy. The Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay 
Act No.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.