VENKATESH NARAHAR KATTI versus HAJI SAHEB KHADIR SAHEB MULLA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 13-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
1 
• 
A 
VENKATESH NARAHAR KATTI 
v. 
HAJJ SAHEB KHADIR SAHEB MULLA AND ANOTHER 
October 13, 1965 
B 
[K. SUBBA RAO, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (51 of 1948), s. 29(2) 
Application wider-Starting point of limitation. 
On 8th December 1%6, the appellant served on the respondent three 
months' notice in writing under s. 14(l)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, terminating the tenancy on tho ground 
of default in payment of rent. 
On 24th June 1957 the appellant filed 
an application under s. 29(2) for possession. 
The Tahsildar allowed 
the application and the order was confirmed on appeal. 
But in revision, 
the ReYenue Tribunal set aside the order on the ground, that the appli-
cation was barred by. limitation, because, it was filed more than two 
years after 20th May 1955, which was the date of default. 
A petition 
by the appellant under Art. 227, was rejected by the High Court. 
In the appeal to the Supreme Court, on the question whether the 
application was filed within the two years' period of limitation prescribed 
by s. 29(2). 
HELD : Limitation for the application began to run from the date 
of tho termination of the tenancy and not from the antecedent date of 
default in payment of rent and so, the application, filed within two 
yectrs of the termination of the :tenancy was not barred 
by limitation. 
[220 G] 
"The legislature could not have intended that_ limitation would com-
mence to run before the right to apply under s. 29(2) accrues. 
The 
right to apply accrues to the landlord when the tenancy is terminated by 
notice under s. 14(l)(b). But in spite of the termination of the tenancy 
the landlord has no right to obtain possession without mt order under 
s. 29(2). On the termination of the tenancy, the right to obtain posses-
sion, though in reality not accrued to the landlord, is, 
by a legal 
fiction, deemed to have accrued to him. 
Consequently, tho date of 
termination of the tenancy is also the date when the right to obtain pos-
session is deemed to have accrued to the landlord. 
Since the limitation 
for the application under s. 29(2) commences to run from the date 
when the right to obtain possession is deemed to have accrued to the 
landlord. it would follow that limitation begins to run from the date 
when the tenancy is terminated by the notice under s. 14(1)(b). [218 A-B, 
D, F-GJ 
The history of the legislation also- shows that both before and after the 
Amendment Act, 1951-which provided the two years' period of limita-
tion-the date of the termination of the renancy is the starting point 
of limitation. [218 HJ 
Ralnachandra Anant v. Janardan, 64 Born. L.R. 637 (F.B.) approv-
ed. 
Chimanbai Rama v. Ganpat Jagannath, I.L.R. [1958] Born. 917 (F.B.) 
overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATJ! JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 558 of 
1963. 
216 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
A 
January 19, 1961 of the Mysore High Court in Civil Petition 
No. 654 of 1960. 
S. G. Patwardhan and K. R. Chaudhury, for the appellant. 
A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. 
The appellant is the landlord and responde:it 
No. 1 is the tenant of S. Nos. 180 and 182 of village Dhanyal, 
taluk Bijapur. Respondent No. 1 defaulted in payment of rent for 
the years 1951-52, 1953-54 and 1954-55. On December 8, 1956, 
the appellant served on respondent No. 1 three months' notice in C 
writing under s. 14(1)(b) of the Bamby Tenancy and Agricultural 
Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. 57 of 1948) hereinafter refer-
red to as the Tenancy Act, terminating the tenancy on the ground of 
default in payment of rent. On June 24, 1957, the appellant filed 
an application under s. 29(2) read with s. 14(1) of the Tenancy 
D 
Act for possession of the land. The Tahsildar, Bijapur allowed the 
application, and directed possession of the land to be delivered to 
the appellant. This order was affirmed on appeal by the Assistant 
Commissioner, Bijapur. On revision, the Mysore Revenue Appel-
late Tribunal set aside the order of the first two tribunals and dis' 
missed the :uiplication. A petition by the appellant under Art. 227 
of the Constitution was summarily rejected by the Mysore High 
K 
Court. The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave. 
The Tribunals below concurrently found that respondent No. 1 
defaulted in

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