SUBRAYA VARDAPPA HEGDE Vs. GOPAL KRISHNA VISHWESHWAR SHASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision arising from an application made by the applicant-landlord for possession of lands from the tenant Opponent No. 1 on the ground that he had during a period of four years from 1949-50 to 1952-53 sub-let parcels out of the lands let to him to opponents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. That Opponent No. 1 had sub-let pieces of 14 Bombay [prs. 1-5] S. V. Hegde v. G. V. Shastri (Bavdekar J.) A. I. R. land to Opponents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is not in dispute. The principal contention which was taken on behalf of Opponent No. 1 which it is necessary to state for the purpose of the present application under Art. 227 of the Constitution is that the landlord had failed to apply within a period of two years from the date when there was in the first instance sub-letting by Opponent No. 1 in the year 1949-50. It was said that in case the landlord wanted to apply for possession of the lands from Opponent No. 1 on the ground that he had sub-let, he had under the provisions of S. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to make an application to the Mamlatdar "within a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land is deemed to have accrued to him". The application which the petitioner-landlord made in this case to the Mamlatdar was on 23-1-1953. It is contended that this was more than two years after the date of the first sub-letting which was in the year 1949-50. Consequently the applicant's application to the Mamlatdar was barred by time. The view which has appealed to the Revenue Tribunal to which the matter ultimately went in revision is that the application to obtain possession made by the landlord was barred by time because the cause of action for the landlord to terminate the tenancy and claim possession, treating the sub-letting as invalid, arose on 1-4-1950. The learned Members of the Tribunal did not go into the question as to whether the time would begin to run only when the landlord came to know of the sub-letting. They said that the time would begin to run immediately there was sub-letting. In that view of the case inasmuch as the application which was made by the landlord was more than two years after 1-4-1950, they held that the application was barred by time. They therefore allowed the application for revision and set aside the orders which had been passed by both the Courts below, giving the applicant-landlord possession of the property sub-let by Opponent No. 1. He has made this application to this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) NOW, under S. 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act the application by a landlord to obtain possession of land which is let by a tenant to others must be made within a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land is deemed to have accrued to him, and the question is when the right to obtain possession is deemed to have accrued to the landlord.

(3.) NOW, this Court held in Raghgouda Para-gouda v. Appasaheb, 58 Bom LR 64: (AIR 1956 Bom 759) (A), that even though a landlord's intention to terminate the tenancy may be manifest only from his application under S. 29 (2) the right to obtain possession may be deemed to have accrued earlier and we are prepared to hold that when there is only one breach the right to obtain possession must be deemed to have accrued when there is sub-letting by Opponent No. 1 in contravention of the provisions of S. 27, sub-section (I) of the Act and the landlord comes to know of it. There is a dispute however as to whether it is necessary that the landlord should come to know of this sub-letting before it can be said that there accrued to him a right to obtain possession of the land. In the second instance it is contended that when there are parcels sub-let successively, the right to obtain possession arises when the tenant first sub-lets a portion of the land let to him. It is agreed that in case the tenant sub-lets again other parcels of land to other sub-tenants there-after, there are successive breaches of the provisions of S. 27, sub-s. (1 ). But it is said that no fresh right to obtain possession accrues to the landlord when the tenant successively lets subsequently other pieces of land. Consequently if the landlord fails to make an application to obtain possession of the land within a period of two years from the date when the tenant first sub-lets any. portion of the land let to him the landlord's right to obtain possession is barred by the provisions of S. 29, sub-s. (2 ).