APPAJI KRISHNAJI KULKARNI Vs. BHIMAPPA TIPPANNA PARAMAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was the opponent-landlord in Revision Application No. TEN/B/3535 of 1936 on the file of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal. The present Respondent No. 1 was the applicant-tenant in the said revision application. In that revision application, the Bombay Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 10-9-1956 set aside the order which had been passed by the Prant Officer in favour of the landlord and dismissed the original application which had been filed by the landlord, for possession of the land of which the applicant in the revision application was the tenant. The present petition under Article 227 is directed against the said order passed in revision by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal.

(2.) On behalf of the tenant-respondent No. 1, it has been contended firstly, that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227, and secondly, that even if it is held that this Court has jurisdiction, there are no good grounds for interference. The first contention in regard to the question of jurisdiction is urged on the following lines: The order passed in revision by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, was made on 10-9-1956, which was prior to 1-11-1956 the date on which the new State of Mysore came into existence under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. On 10-9-1956, this High Court had no jurisdiction over the territory in which the land concerned in these proceedings, is situated. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal which made the said order, is not functioning within the territories of the State of Mysore, but is functioning within the State of Bombay, Under these circumstances, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 227 being limited to the territories over which this High Court exercises jurisdiction, this High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in respect of the said order.

(3.) We have heard the learned Advocates on both the sides, at length, about the objection in regard to the jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227. Before proceeding further to discuss this question, it is necessary to state that no prayer has been made in the petition, which involves the question of issuing any order or direction to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal which is functioning beyond the territories over which this High Court exercises jurisdiction. We, therefore, consider it unnecessary to refer to the authorities cited by the learned Advocates in regard to the limitations on the powers of the High Court to issue writs, orders or directions to any authority which is functioning beyond the territory over which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. It may also be further stated that the entire records of the case out of which the revisional order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal arose, are before this High Court.