9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act regarding recovery of rent. 2. Determination of the limitation period for filing an application for recovery of rent. 3. Consideration of relevant sections of the Act such as Sections 8, 9, and 22. 4. Application of Section 42(4) of the Act and its relation to the Limitation Act of 1963. Analysis: The judgment addressed the interpretation of the Mysore Land Reforms Act concerning the recovery of rent. The court considered the limitation period for filing an application for rent recovery under Section 42 of the Act. The key issue was determining when the rent becomes due under the Act, specifically in the context of Sections 8, 9, and 22. Section 8 outlines the payment of rent annually and the determination of the maximum recoverable amount by the landlord based on the gross produce. Section 9 specifies that rent payable in the form of a share of the gross produce should be paid before the date notified by the State Government. The court highlighted that non-payment of rent, as per Section 22, is grounds for eviction, with a specific explanation provided to deem a tenant to have failed to pay rent. The judgment emphasized that the tenant must pay rent by the end of June following the expiry of the year to avoid being deemed in default. The court analyzed the application of Section 42(4) of the Act in conjunction with the Limitation Act of 1963. It noted that an application under Section 42 is deemed a suit for arrears of rent, with a limitation period of one year. The judgment clarified that the limitation period for filing an application for rent recovery starts from the end of June following the year for which rent is due. The court reasoned that the landlord can file an application for rent recovery within one year from the end of June, as failure to pay rent by then triggers the cause of action for recovery proceedings. The judgment concluded that the application filed in this case on 7-2-1969 for rent due in 1967-68 was within the limitation period based on the Act's provisions. In the specific cases discussed, the court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the lower courts' orders that dismissed the applications for rent recovery on grounds of limitation. The matters were remitted back to the trial court for the determination of the rent owed to the landlord. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the Act's provisions and timelines for rent recovery and eviction, ensuring clarity and consistency in legal proceedings.
|
