Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 between a landlord and tenant over agricultural land in village Dhanyal, taluk Bijapur. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent for the years 1951-52, 1953-54 and 1954-55, with the last default occurring on 20 May 1955. On 8 December 1956, the landlord served a three months' notice under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act terminating the tenancy on the ground of default. On 24 June 1957, the landlord filed an application under Section 29(2) read with Section 14(1) for possession of the land. The Tahsildar allowed the application and directed possession to be delivered to the landlord. The Assistant Commissioner affirmed this order on appeal. However, in revision, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders and dismissed the application, holding that it was barred by limitation because it was filed more than two years after 20 May 1955, the date of default. The landlord's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was summarily rejected by the Mysore High Court. The landlord then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the application under Section 29(2) was filed within the two-year period of limitation prescribed by that section. The landlord contended that the right to obtain possession was deemed to have accrued on the date of termination of the tenancy by notice on 8 December 1956, and therefore the application filed in June 1957 was within limitation. Alternatively, he argued that the three months' notice period should be excluded under Section 15(2) read with Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The respondent defended the Revenue Tribunal's view that limitation ran from the date of default. The Supreme Court accepted the landlord's first contention and did not express any opinion on the alternative argument. The Court reasoned that the legislature could not have intended limitation to commence before the right to apply accrued. The right to apply under Section 29(2) read with Section 14(1) accrues when the tenancy is terminated by notice under Section 14(1)(b). Although the landlord cannot actually obtain possession without an order under Section 29(2), a legal fiction deems the right to obtain possession to have accrued on the termination date so that the landlord may immediately apply. The Court also relied on the history of the legislation, noting that both before and after the Amendment Act, 1951, the date of termination was the starting point. The Court approved the Full Bench decision in Ramachandra Anant v. Janardan and overruled the contrary Full Bench decision in Chimanbai Rama v. Ganpat Jagannath. Consequently, the application filed on 24 June 1957, within two years of the termination date of 8 December 1956, was not barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation Law - Starting Point of Limitation - Limitation under Section 29(2) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 runs from date of termination of tenancy, not antecedent default - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 14(1)(b), 29(2) - The landlord served three months' notice under Section 14(1)(b) on 8 December 1956 terminating the tenancy for default in rent; application for possession under Section 29(2) filed on 24 June 1957. The Revenue Tribunal held barred as filed more than two years after last default on 20 May 1955. Supreme Court held that the right to obtain possession is deemed to have accrued on the date of termination, and limitation begins from that date; the application was within two years of termination. Held that limitation could not commence before the right to apply accrued, and the legal fiction deems accrual on termination despite tenant remaining in lawful possession until order under Section 29(2) (Paras Not mentioned). B) Precedent - Conflicting High Court Decisions - Approval and Overruling - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 29(2) - The Court approved Ramachandra Anant v. Janardan and overruled Chimanbai Rama v. Ganpat Jagannath on the starting point of limitation. Held that the Full Bench decision in Ramachandra Anant correctly held termination date as starting point, while Chimanbai Rama took contrary view (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 filed on 24 June 1957 was within the two-year period of limitation, when the tenancy was terminated by notice on 8 December 1956 but the last default in rent occurred on 20 May 1955.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the application under Section 29(2) was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Limitation began to run from the date of termination of tenancy on 8 December 1956, not from the antecedent date of default on 20 May 1955. The appeal was allowed, the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal was set aside, and the application for possession was not barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Limitation for application under Section 29(2) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 commences from date of termination of tenancy
- not antecedent default
- Right to obtain possession deemed to accrue on termination
- Landlord cannot obtain possession without order under Section 29(2)
- Tenant remains in lawful possession until order and liable for rent not mesne profits
