MEENAKSHI M GURAO Vs. KRISHNA S RAHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the advocate for the petitioner. The Respondent though served, nobody is present on his behalf.

(2.) The petitioner Meenakshi is claiming to be the tenant of the disputed land. She applied to the tenancy Court i. e. Tahsildar guhagar on 15-6-1988, under Section 7-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act') , to decide whether she is atenant. As per the order of the Tahsildar, he recorded the statement of the landlord and the tenant and the Petitioner gave her oral evidence that she was the tenant. The Tahsildar also relied upon the so called admission of the landlord and allowed that application that she should be declared as tenant from 1-4-1957. Against this order, present Respondent filed an appeal before the SDO Chiplun, under S. 74 of the tenancy Act. That Appeal was allowed. Against the judgment in appeal, tenant preferred Revision before the Tribunal. The revision came to be dismissed, and therefore, this petition on behalf of the tenant. The counsel for the Petitioner raised one point to assail orders of the SDO and MRT, Bombay. According to him, the order of the Tahsildar was dated 30th June, 1988 and the appeal before the SDO came to be filed on 27-9-1990 i. e. after about two years, to be specific 21 months and this was a time barred appeal and the period prescribed for filing the appeal under section 71 of the Tenancy Act, was 60 days from the date of the order of Mamalatdar or tahsildar. He contended that when admittedly appeal was time barred, the SDO has no powers to hear the appeal, in the absence of any application for condonation of delay. Mr. Dalvi, drew my attention to the decision of Supreme court reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court cases 717, Ragho Singh Vs. Mohan Singh and Ors. wherein in paragraph 6, Supreme court held that since it is not disputed that the appeal before the Additional Collector was beyond time by 10 days and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not filed for condonation of delay, there was no jurisdiction in the Additional Collector to allow that appeal. The appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

(3.) It appears from the order of MRT that this point does not appear to have been raised before the MRT. In the Revision filed before MRT though the Petitioner has taken the point of limitation, it is not considered by the MRT. However, since it is a question going to the root of the matter, it requires consideration.