LexSHANKAR MADHOJI NEMADE versus CHISUJI JANAJI BHADKE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f A c 73 SHANKAR MADHOJI NEMADE v. CHISUJI JANAJI BHADKE & ORS. September 8, 1970 [J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. VA!DJAI.;JNGAM, JJ.J Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ( Vldarhha Region and Kutch area) Act (99 of 1958), s. 52r-Scope of. D Section 9(6) of the Berar Regulation of Agrieultura1 Leases Act, 1951, read with rule 9 of the Rules made thereunder required a land holder, who terrnhiated the tenancy of his protected lease on the ground that the land was required by him for his personal· cultivation, to cultivate the land per- sonally for a period of 2 years. If the land holder failed to do so then the section conferred a right on the former protected lessee to apply to the Revenue Officer for being restored to possession. On December 30, 1958, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act of 1958 came into force. Under s. 132 of the Bombay Act, the Berar Act was repealed but certain rights acquired or accrued before the commencement of the Bombay Act were saved. Under s. 52 of the Bombay Act, if the landlord had cea..M to cultivate the land within a period df 12 years from the date of taking possession, the tenant can apply for restoration, that is, the period of 2 years under the Berar Act was enlarged to 12 years. E Tue appellant was a protected lessee within the meaning of the CXPJ'.OS- sion in the Berar Act, in respect of certain lands. The lanillord obtained possession of the lands on April 4, 1~57 on the ground that he required the lands for personal cultivation. He continued in possession of the lands till June 21, 1961, on which date he transferred the lands to the first res- pondent. The tenant thereupon filed an application under s. 52 of the Bombay, Act. The application was dismissed but the tenant's app<;al was 11Dowed. The appellate order was confirmed in revision by the Revenue Tribunal. The first respondent filed a writ petition and the High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal. The certified copy of the r l 'udplellt of the High Court, by mistake, showed the valuation of the ands at a very much higher value than the value given by the appellant i.n the writ petition. The appellant obtained special leave from this Court mentioning the enhanced valuation in bis application for special leave. G On the questions : ( 1) Whether the special leave granted by this Court ~hould be cancelled on the ground \bat the appellant made a fahe state- ment in regard to valuation; and (2) whether s. 52 of the llombay Act applll!e, HELD : ( 1) Jn the particular circumst.ances of this c~se. though the appellant should have bee11 more careful, 1t cannot be said. that ~e was guilty of making any false or untrue statement on any matenal l,'artrculars deliberately to mislead the court. : Further, the statement regar~mg va!u•- tion was not of much consequence in this case because the questions rar9Cd are points of law regarding the applicability of s. 52 of the Bombay Act. [81 D·Fl H Harl Narain v. Badri Das, f19641 2 S~C.R. 203, Sita Bai v; Sonu Vanji Wani & Ors., C.A. No. 982/65 dt. 25-4'68 and S. R. Shelly v. Phirozes/rah Nusrerwanji 'Go/abawal/a & Anr., C:A. No. 155/63 dt. 5-4-63, referred to. 6--L23SSup.CICP)71 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971 J2 S.C.R. (2) Section 52 of the Bombay Act applies to the facts of this case. [91 BJ If a landlord, in pursuance of an order obtained under the Berar Act, takes possession after the commencement of the Bombay Act, s. 52 applies to him and his obligation to cultivate personally for two years under the Berar Act gets extended to 12 years period provide<l under that section. [90 A-Bl · If the landlord had taken possession o'f the land under the Berar Act before the commencement of the Bombay Act, there was an obligation on him to cultivate personally for two years and if he had not so cultivated, the tenant would have acquired a right to be 'rll!ltored to possession. That right, so acquired by the tenant or accrued to him, before the commonce- ment of the Bombay Act, is ·saved under s. 132(2) (i) of the Bombay Act. · Similiarly, If the landlord had cultivated the land personally for the re- quired period before .the Bombay Act ·came into force the landlord would have acquired a right not .to be disturbed from his possession thereafter. That right ngain, which had been· acquired by the landlord or accrued to him is saved under s. !32(2(i). [89 E-H] Therefore, s.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.