1970 (9) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Section 36 read with Section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act.
2. Legal validity of the lease executed by the mother of the landlord.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
4. Applicability of Section 39 and limitation period for filing the application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application under Section 36 read with Section 39:
The landlord served a notice on the tenant to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of personal cultivation and subsequently filed an application under Section 36 read with Section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act. The tenant contested the application, asserting that the lease was created before April 1, 1957, and thus, he had acquired the status of a protected lessee. The Naib Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal upheld the landlord's claim, but the High Court found that the lease was validly created before April 1, 1957, making Section 39 inapplicable. The High Court remanded the matter to the Naib Tahsildar for consideration under Section 36 read with Section 38, allowing the landlord to resume half of the leased land.

2. Legal Validity of the Lease Executed by the Mother:
The tenant argued that the leases were granted by the landlord's mother while the landlord was a minor, and hence, they were valid. The Naib Tahsildar initially found that the mother was not the legal guardian and thus, the lease was invalid. However, the High Court determined that the mother, acting as the de facto guardian, had the authority to lease the property. The High Court held that the lease executed on February 12, 1956, was valid and binding, as the mother was managing the minor's affairs in the absence of the father's interest.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227:
The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by acting as an appellate court. However, the High Court clarified that it only reviewed whether the subordinate tribunals acted within their jurisdiction and did not interfere with the findings of fact. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the High Court's intervention was limited to jurisdictional issues and did not exceed its authority under Article 227.

4. Applicability of Section 39 and Limitation Period:
The High Court interpreted Section 39 of the Act, which required applications to be filed within one year of the Act coming into force, i.e., by January 28, 1962. The landlord filed the application on March 30, 1963, within one year of attaining majority, but the High Court held that Section 39 did not provide an extended period for minors. Consequently, the application was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court agreed that Section 39 was inapplicable since the lease was created before April 1, 1957, and thus, the limitation issue did not arise.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, confirming that the lease executed by the mother was valid, and the application under Section 39 was barred by limitation. The landlord was entitled to resume half of the leased land under Section 36 read with Section 38. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's directions for remand to the Naib Tahsildar were affirmed.