# KESHEORAO v. NARNARA YAN & ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 14
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-02-17
- **Case number:** Special Civil Appeal No. 387 of 1966
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, A. C. Gupta, P. S. Kailasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kesheorao-v-narnara-yan-another-7168
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 227-Powers of the High Court-·Bon1bay
Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vldarbha
Region and
Kutch
Area). Act
1958-Sections 36. 38. 100(2). 132(3)-Recovery of possession.
Berar Regulation of AKricultural Leases Act 1951-Section 9A--!1!fi11or
lessor's avvlication for possession within 3 years after attaining 111ajority.
Respondent No. 1 landlord after his father's death and during his :minority
let out the agricultural land in dispute to the appellant tenant through
his
mother for one year.
After the expiry of the lease period the tenant refused
to deliver possess.ion of the field.
The mother filed a suit for possession \vhich
v.-as dismissed. Section 9A of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases
Act 1951 (Madhya Pradesh Act No. XXIV of 1951) enables a minor lessor
to get possession within 3 years of his
attaining
n1ajority.
The
landlord,
therefore, after attaining majority filed a petition for possession .. _ By order
dated 8-8-1955, the authorities terminated the tenancy under s. 9A(2)
of
the Berar Act. It was directed that the landlord shall apply for possession
of the suit land after 31-3-1956.
Pending the proceedings under s. 9A the
landlord applied for recovery of mesne profits or, in the alternative, the lease
an1ount.
Subsequently, the landlord filed a '>Uit in the year 1960 against the
tenant for recovery of mesne profits or for rent since the tenant continued to
be on the land. When the suit was pending the landlord filed anothe-r application under s. 100(2) and s. 36 read with secti0n 38 of the Bombay 'fenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region & Kutch Area) Act 1958 (Bombay Act No. XLIX of 1958). The relief prayed was for a declaration t11at
Kesheorao was -ilot a tenant. In the alternative, the landlord claimed
for
relief of resumrtion of the suit filed under sectio(l 36(2) and 38(1) of the
Tenancy Act.
The Tenancy Court took the vie\v that the tenancy was terminated by the order dated 8-8-1955 under section 9A of the Berar 1\ct and
that the possession of Kesheorao thereafter was not in the caoacity of a tenant
and allowed the landlord's claim for possession under s. 132(3) of the Tenancy Act. The Tribunal reversed the judgment of the Appellate Authority
and held that the tenant was a protected Jessee and entitled to enjoy that status
under s. 6 of the Tenancy Act.
The Tribunal held that the landlord in his
application under _sectioni 36 (2) will have to satisfy the conditions contained
in s. 38(3) and (4) of the Tenancy Act. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed
the application of the landlord for possession. The Jligh Court in exercise
of its powers Under Article 227 of the Constitution quashed the order of the
llevenue Tribunal and restored the order passed by the Deputy Co1lector.
The
High Court h~Jd that the landlord was entitled to get possession under s. 36 read
withs. 38 and section 100(2) of the Tenancy .!\ct and directed the handing over
of the possession to the landlord.
In an appeal by Special Leave the tenant contended that (1) The landlord
took various proceedings on the basis that the appeJlant \Vas a tenant and,
therefore. the landlord recognised or at any rate acquiesced in the tenancy of
the appellant.
<2) The order passed under s. 9A of the J1erar Act cannot be given effect
to lh'lder s. 36 of the Tenancy Act.
(3) In any event, the application for possession \vas not filed within t\VO
yenrs from the date of the order for possession.
DismissinJ:! the appeal bv special leave.
HELD: (1) After the order dated 7-8-1955 \vas passed under section 9A
of the Beror Act the lease was terminated nnd the appellant ceased to be n
•
.¥
KESHEORAO v. NARNARAYAN (Kailasam, J.)
15
tenant.
The status ·Of the appellant as a tenant was also lost on the expiry
.of the 7 years neriod on 31-3-1956 conferred on him under the Berar Act.
It is clear from various proceedings that the landlonl never recognised
or
-acquiesced in the tenancy of the appellant.
The claim was for n1esne profits
-0r i

## Text

.A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
14
KESHEORAO
v.
NARNARA YAN & ANOTHER
February 17, 1977
[M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]
Constitution of India-Article 227-Powers of the High Court-·Bon1bay
Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vldarbha
Region and
Kutch
Area). Act
1958-Sections 36. 38. 100(2). 132(3)-Recovery of possession.
Berar Regulation of AKricultural Leases Act 1951-Section 9A--!1!fi11or
lessor's avvlication for possession within 3 years after attaining 111ajority.
Respondent No. 1 landlord after his father's death and during his :minority
let out the agricultural land in dispute to the appellant tenant through
his
mother for one year.
After the expiry of the lease period the tenant refused
to deliver possess.ion of the field.
The mother filed a suit for possession \vhich
v.-as dismissed. Section 9A of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases
Act 1951 (Madhya Pradesh Act No. XXIV of 1951) enables a minor lessor
to get possession within 3 years of his
attaining
n1ajority.
The
landlord,
therefore, after attaining majority filed a petition for possession .. _ By order
dated 8-8-1955, the authorities terminated the tenancy under s. 9A(2)
of
the Berar Act. It was directed that the landlord shall apply for possession
of the suit land after 31-3-1956.
Pending the proceedings under s. 9A the
landlord applied for recovery of mesne profits or, in the alternative, the lease
an1ount.
Subsequently, the landlord filed a '>Uit in the year 1960 against the
tenant for recovery of mesne profits or for rent since the tenant continued to
be on the land. When the suit was pending the landlord filed anothe-r application under s. 100(2) and s. 36 read with secti0n 38 of the Bombay 'fenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region & Kutch Area) Act 1958 (Bombay Act No. XLIX of 1958). The relief prayed was for a declaration t11at
Kesheorao was -ilot a tenant. In the alternative, the landlord claimed
for
relief of resumrtion of the suit filed under sectio(l 36(2) and 38(1) of the
Tenancy Act.
The Tenancy Court took the vie\v that the tenancy was terminated by the order dated 8-8-1955 under section 9A of the Berar 1\ct and
that the possession of Kesheorao thereafter was not in the caoacity of a tenant
and allowed the landlord's claim for possession under s. 132(3) of the Tenancy Act. The Tribunal reversed the judgment of the Appellate Authority
and held that the tenant was a protected Jessee and entitled to enjoy that status
under s. 6 of the Tenancy Act.
The Tribunal held that the landlord in his
application under _sectioni 36 (2) will have to satisfy the conditions contained
in s. 38(3) and (4) of the Tenancy Act. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed
the application of the landlord for possession. The Jligh Court in exercise
of its powers Under Article 227 of the Constitution quashed the order of the
llevenue Tribunal and restored the order passed by the Deputy Co1lector.
The
High Court h~Jd that the landlord was entitled to get possession under s. 36 read
withs. 38 and section 100(2) of the Tenancy .!\ct and directed the handing over
of the possession to the landlord.
In an appeal by Special Leave the tenant contended that (1) The landlord
took various proceedings on the basis that the appeJlant \Vas a tenant and,
therefore. the landlord recognised or at any rate acquiesced in the tenancy of
the appellant.
<2) The order passed under s. 9A of the J1erar Act cannot be given effect
to lh'lder s. 36 of the Tenancy Act.
(3) In any event, the application for possession \vas not filed within t\VO
yenrs from the date of the order for possession.
DismissinJ:! the appeal bv special leave.
HELD: (1) After the order dated 7-8-1955 \vas passed under section 9A
of the Beror Act the lease was terminated nnd the appellant ceased to be n
•
.¥
KESHEORAO v. NARNARAYAN (Kailasam, J.)
15
tenant.
The status ·Of the appellant as a tenant was also lost on the expiry
.of the 7 years neriod on 31-3-1956 conferred on him under the Berar Act.
It is clear from various proceedings that the landlonl never recognised
or
-acquiesced in the tenancy of the appellant.
The claim was for n1esne profits
-0r in the alternative for lease and cannot amount to acquiescing in the tenancy.
Under the Tenancy Act no right has been conferred on the appellant
.after his status as protected tenant came to an end. 'fhe landlord in fact made
an application for possession within the period of two years from the date the
··renancy Act cnme into force and the applicalion was, therefore, not barred
1:ly limitation. [16H, 17A-C, E-Fl
(2) The Revenue Tribunal \Vas in error in upsetting
the
order of the
.Appellate Authority to the effect that after the order under s. 9A of the Berar
Act was passed the possession of the appellant wa5 not in the capacity
of
:a tenant.
The High Court \Vas justified in interfering \Vith the order of the
Revenue Tribunal. [17G-H]
A
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
'. Civil
Appeal No.
2031 of
c
1968.
(Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Decree dated
1.2.1968 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur
Bench) in Special
Civil Appeal No. 387 of 1966).
M. W. Phadke, V. M. Phadke and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the
appellant.
Sharad Manohar, Suresh Sethi and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
KAILASAM, J.
This appeal arise out of special leave granted by
E
this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of
Judicature Bombay at Nagpur. For convenience sake we will refer
.to the appellant as the tenant and the respondent No. 1 as the landlord because the history of the litigation is 25 years old and the parties
had resorted to various remedies before various Tribunals.
The dispute relates to \Field Survey No. 6 area 15 acres 23 gunthas
F
in village Gangaon.
Jodhraj the father of Narnarayan, the landlord before us, died some time in J 942. Narnarayan who was then
.a minor became the owner and his widowed mother Trivenibai
leased the land on behalf of the minor to Kesheorao, the tenant before us, for one year. After the expiry of the lease on 31st January,
1952, the tenant refused to deliver possession of the field. The mother
filed the suit, Snit No. 125-A of 1952 for possession.
The suit as
G
well as further proceedings by way of appeal I.and second appeal
failed and the tenant was held to be protected lessee for a period of
five years from 1951-52.
Availing himself of the benefit of .section 9-A of the Berar Re~u
lation of Agricultural Leases Act Madhya Pradesh Act 24/51 which
•enabled the minor to' get possession within 3 years of his attaining
H
majority he filed a petition for 1t.
By an order dated. 8th {\ugust,
1955 the Sub-Divi~ional Officer found that Narnarayan 1s entitled to
'terminate the lease of the tenant Kesheorao and ordered that lease of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
Kesheorao is terminated under section 9A(2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act and further ordered under that section
that Narnarayan shall apply for possession of the suit filed after 31st
March, 1956. This order admittedly became final.
Pending the proceedings under section 9·-A the landlord applied for recovery of mesne
profits or in the alternative for lease amount.
The landlord subsequently filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 1960 against the tenant for recovery
of mesne profits or for rent.
The suit was necessitated because the
tenant continued to be on the land. The claim was for mesne profits or for lease amount.
When this case was pending the landlord
filed another application under section 100(2) and section 36 read
with section 33 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1953.
(Vidharba
Region and Kutch area).
The relief prayed for was for a declaration that Kesheorao was not a tenant.
In the alternative the landlord claimed for relief of resumption of the suit filed under sections
36(2) and 38(1) 0£ the Bombay Tenancy Act.
The tenancy suits
and the landlord's application were also prolonged and ultimately the
appellate authority took the view that the tenancy was terminated by
order dated !8th August, J 955 under section 9-A of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act and that his possession thereafter
was not in the capacity of a tenant and therefore set aside the order
dated 30th September, 1963 and allowed the • landlord's claim for
possession nnder section 132(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958. The tenant took up the matter to the
Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and the Revenue Tribunal set aside the·
order of the Appellate authority holding that the tenant was protected lessee and entitled to enjoy that status under section 6 of the·
Tenancy Act.
Holding that the landlord in his p'(jtion under section
36(2) will have to satisfy the condition contained in section 38(3)
and ( 4) of the Tenancy Act the Revenue ·.Tribunal decided that the
landlord was not entitled to that relief.
Aggrieved by the order of
the Revenue Tribunal the landlord filed the writ petition out of which
this appeal arises before the Nagpur High Court under Article 227
of thei Constitution praying that the order of the Revenue Tribunal
may be quashed and the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector may be restored.
The High Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal.
The High Court held.
that the petitioner was entitled to get possession under section 36
read with section 38 and section 100(2) of the Bombay Tenancy
Act and directed that the possession will be, given to the landlord after
the crops of the year 1967-68 are removed.
It is unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to go into the
various proceedings between the landlord and the tenant.
For the
purpose of decisi'on of this appeal it is sufficient to state that the
landlord who was a minor filed a petition· under section 9-A of the·
Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act and obtained ail order
from the Sub-Divisional Officer on 8th August, 1955 terminating the
H
lease of the tenant and directing that the landlord shall flpolv for
possession of the field on 31st March,
1956.
After 7th
August.
1955 when the lease was terminated the tenant ceased to be a tenant.
KESHEORAO v. NARNARAY/\N (Kailasam,. ! .. )
17
Equally the status of the tenant was lost by Kesheorao when the protected tenancy came to an end with the expiry of the 7th years' peri0d
conferred on him under the Berar Act.
The result was that the
tenancy rights of Kesheorao were put an end to by the order dated
8th August, ·1955 and whatever rights he ,might have had under the
Berar Act came to an end on
31st
March,
1956.
The only
ground on which the rights of a tenant are claimed is that after 31st
March, 1956 and after 31st March, 1958 though his tenancy rights
expired he continued to be a tenant because he was in possession and
various proceedings were taken by the landlord on the basis that he
was a tenant.
This plea cannot be accepted. It is seen from
the
various proceedings that the landlord never recognised or acquiesced·
in the tenancy of Kesheorao.
The landlord claimed for mesne profits
or alternatively for lease amouut. The claim was not based on the
landlord acquiescing in the tenancy.
We have been taken through
the relevant provision of the Bombay Tenancy Act but there is no provis:\)n by which any right as a tenant is conferred on Kesheorao after·
his status as protected tenant expired.
In this view the tenant ceased
to have any right after 31st March, 1958, up to which tiine he could
continue due to an amendment in the Act and, if he had managed to
continue ;•n possession it was in spite of the landlord.
The objection that is taken ]Jy the learned counsel for the tenant
is that the order which is made on 8th )August, 1955 under section
9-A cannot be given ~ffect to except under the provisions of section·
36 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
It was also submitted' that in any
event the application had not been filed with;'rl. two years from the
date of the order for possession.
It was brought to our notice that
the landlord did make an application on 1 lth January, 1960 for
possession within two years from the date of the Bombay Act coming
into force and as such it is not barred by limitation. The applicab;iity or otherwise of section 132(2) and (3) was vehemently argued,
but, in the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to go into that question.
We find that the tenant ceased to have _any right after 3 lst
March, 1958 and did not acquire any rights subsequentfy by the landlord acquiescing in the tenancy. While the tenant had no right the
landlord had obtained an order under section 9-A terminating the lease
of the tenant and directing the landlord to apply for possession of the
field on 31st March, 1956. The landlord had in fact
applied for
possession after we are also informed that the landlord obtained
possession as early as 18th February, 1968. In the circumstances
we do not feel called upon to interfere with the decision of the High
Court holding that the landlord is entitled to get possession.
The
Revenue Tribunal was in error in upsetting the mder of the appellate
authority that the tenancy was terminated by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 8th August, 1955 under section 9-A of the leases Act and that
his possession thereafter was not in the capacity of a tenant.
The
High Court was therefore justified in interfering with the order of the
Revenue Tribunal.
We see no ground for ;•nterfering with the conclusion arrived at by the Hi~h Court and dismiss this appeal. In tlie
circumstances the parties will bear their own costs.
P.H.P.
Appeal dismissed:
c