DINKAR ANANDA MANE Vs. PANDURANG DNYANU BENDRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOME facts need to be disclosed for the purposes of unfolding the matter and the controversy. The land in question are Survey Nos. 499/1, 498/11, 513/8 and 500/5 which are now consolidated in Gat No. 1023 admeasuring 3 Hectares and 41 Ares, situate at village Charegaon, Taluka Karad (hereinafter referred to as the suit land for convenience). Deceased Pandurang Dnyanu Bendre was the predecessor in title of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and was the original landlord of the suit land. Deceased Dinkar Ananda Mane, father of the present petitioner, was the tenant of half portion of the land. Deceased Pandurang Dnyanu Bendre had obtained exemption certificate in view of provisions of Section 88 -C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Tenancy Act' for convenience) and had obtained an order of possession of his share in Gat No. 1023 by instituting a proceeding under Section 33B of the Act. An order was passed in Tenancy Case No. 72/1972 on 30 -6 -1973. The said order was challenged by the tenant by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 15/1975 and it was decided on 9 -10 -1978. Original landlord died on 10 -1 -1984. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was preferred against dead person. The tenant thereafter preferred a revision application before the MRT, Pune being No. MRT/NS/X/8/79(TNC -B303/79), which was also rejected by the Tribunal on 10 -11 -1983. The tenant thereafter preferred Writ Petition No. 1866 of 1984 challenging the said order of the Tribunal in this Court. The said petition was finally decided on 8 -2 -1985 in which this Court Single Bench observed that the deceased Dinkar Mane should prefer a fresh appeal against the order dated 13 -6 -1973 against the heirs and LRs. of the original certificated landlord and was at liberty to move an application for condonation of delay, if so advised and the authority concerned should consider the same in accordance with law. In view of that, the present petitioners submitted an appeal bearing NO. 61/1985 before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Karad along with prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. A challenge was made to the order passed in Tenancy Case No. 72/72 on 30 -7 -1973 by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Karad. The Sub -Divisional Officer passed the judgment and order and held that there was no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. He pointed out that the present petitioners were not diligent in making the application for certified copy in time and theywere negligent in getting the copy or they did not make out a case for condonation of delay in view of Section 14 of Limitation Act. The appeal was dismissed on 7 -4 -1986.

(2.) THE present petitioners filed a revision application before the M.R.T. Pune which was numbered as MRT -NS -IX -1/85(TNC -B -195/86). A prayer for condonation of delay was made. The Member of M.R.T. dismissed the said revision petition and also held that the judgment and order passed by Single Bench of the High Court was nullity as the tenant was not alive at the time of passing the said judgment and order. The learned Member of M.R.T. also held that the present petitioners were not prompt enough to prosecute the proceeding so also were not prompt enough in getting the certified copy within time. He also held that the case was not made out for condonation of delay in view of provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as the L.Rs. of original landlord were not brought on record within time. The Member also held that the Petitioners were not diligent in filing Appeal No. 61 of 1985. He dismissed the said revision petition by observing that there was no ground for interfering with the order which was passed by the S.D.O. The said revision petition came to be dismissed on 3 -11 -1987 which was challenged by the present petition.

(3.) IN the present case, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the Member of the Tribunal was obviously in error in coming to the conclusion that the judgment of the High Court in the matter of Writ Petition No. 1866 of 1984 was nullity because at the time of passing of the judgment and order by the High Court, the original landlord was not alive and it was a judgment passed against a dead person leave aside the improperness of the language used.