1998 (10) TMI 531 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispossession of tenant and subsequent legal proceedings.
2. Application under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
3. Barred by limitation.
4. Benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
5. Validity of tenant's application under Section 29 of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The lands in question were initially owned by a Watandar, Mahadeo Mohite, and later vested in the State Government after the abolition of the Watan under the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan Act, 1950. The first respondent, a tenant, was dispossessed by the Watandar and subsequent purchasers, leading to a series of legal proceedings initiated by the tenant to regain possession.

2. The tenant filed an application under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, seeking possession of the lands on the grounds of unauthorized occupation by the appellants. However, the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the application, directing the tenant to file under Section 29 of the Act for restoration of possession.

3. The appellants contended that the tenant's application was barred by limitation as it was not filed within two years from the date of dispossession. The tenant's plea was rejected by the Tehsildar and subsequent authorities, leading to a series of appeals and revisions challenging the limitation aspect of the application.

4. The tenant sought the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, claiming bona fide prosecution of the proceedings under Section 84 of the Tenancy Act. The High Court, in its judgment, upheld the tenant's claim under Section 14, condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 29 of the Act.

5. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the tenant's genuine efforts to regain possession and the sequential nature of legal actions taken by the tenant in good faith. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the tenant's application under Section 29 was justified, considering the circumstances and the tenant's persistent pursuit of his rights under the Act. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and ordering the restoration of possession to the tenant.