GULSHANBAI MARD KANDIBHAI Vs. BANDU PANDU GHADGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the wife of the deceased landlord against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1429 of 1971. The husband was a 'certificate landlord' within the meaning of S. 33a of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') He died on 23/12/1959. He had obtained a certificate under section 88c of the Act on 11/11/1959. The appellant had 'also applied for a certificate under that S. on 30/9/1959. That application had been made within the time prescribed under the Act. However she was told by the concerned authority, namely the Mamlatdar that in view of the certificate held by her deceased husband, it was unnecessary for her to make an application for a fresh certificate. On the assurance of the Authority that she was entitled to terminate the tenancy and assume possession of the land on the basis of the certificate held by her deceased husband, she did not press her application under S. 88c for a certificate. Her application was accordingly dismissed by Order dated 17 the October 1962. She then made an application under section 33 31/12/1962 for possession of the land in question. These facts are no longer in dispute because they were found to be correct by three statutory authorities. All of them held that the facts, as pleaded by her on the point, enabled her to make an application under section 33b, which, as aforesaid, she did on 31/12/1962. The authorities concurrently rently found in her favour on the question of bona fide requirements. On a Writ petition filed by the tenant, the High court, by the impugned judgment, held that the application filed by the appellant on 31/12/1962 was not within time. The Writ petition was allowed quashing the orders of the authorities below solely on the ground of limitation.

(2.) S. 33 B says that a notice has to be given under Ss. (1) before the 1st day of January, 1962, or if an application under S. 88c was undisposed of and pending on that day, within three months of receipt of a certificate under that section. The appellant applied on 31/12/1962 for possession in terms of S. 33b. If the Order dated 17/10/1962 dismissing her application for a certificate under S. 88c, for the reasons stated by the three statutory authorities, is accepted as the starting point of the period of limitation, her application dated 31/12/1962 was filed within time On the other hand, if her application for a certificate under S. 88c had not been withdrawn, she would have had time to file an application under S. 33b until such certificate was issued to her. If the certificate was denied to her, she would have had a right to appeal against the order denying the certificate.

(3.) The Order dated 17/10/1962 was made on the assumption that the appellant was entitled to make her application under section 33b on the strength of the certificate held by her husband. That the certificate held by the husband was heritable by the wife was not in doubt. All the parties proceeded on the basis that such a certificate was heritable. The only question then is whether the authority that gave an assurance to the wife that she could act on the certificate held by her deceased husband, and that she could safely withdraw her own application which was unnecessary, is not estopped from denying her right to rely upon that certificate held by her husband. On the facts found, it is dear that she would not have withdrawn her application, but for the assurance held out to her by the concerned authority.