TRIMBAK BHIKAJI PATIL Vs. PUNDLIK KRISHNAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involve questions as to the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy and obtain possession under the provisions of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Berar Act) and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The dispute is with respect to three pieces of agricultural lands situated at Shioni Armal in Chikhli tahsil. They belonged to Trim-bak Bhikaji and his brother Kesheo. The petitioner Trimbak has filed an application under Section 8 (1) (c) (f) of the Berar Act for an order of the Revenue Officer to terminate the tenancy in respect of these lands. On 30-4-1951, the three lands were let out to Pundalik Krishnaji, respondent No. 1 and the allegation of Trimbak was that Pundalik has partitioned and sub-let S. No. 67/5 by handing over a part of the property to respondent No. 2 Keshao. Section 8 of the Berar Act (relevant portion) reads as follows :

(2.) The orders were passed by the M. R. T. on 25-3-1970 and the writ petitions have been filed on 4-8-1971. i. e. after about one year and four months. Mr. Kherdekar, for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the writ petitions should not be entertained and decided on account of this delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. This argument was considered for the first time on 24-1-1977 when the matter was heard by Mr. Justice Masodkar. On that day an order was passed that the petitioner should explain the delay in filing the petitions. Thereafter the petitioner's advocate Mr. V. R. Manohar filed his own affidavit in both the applications. In those affidavits he has stated that he was engaged by Trimbak Bhikaji for arguing the matters before the M. R. T. and that after the M. R. T. decided the revisions, the petitioner had instructed him (Mr. Manohar) to file writ petitions in the High Court challenging the validity of the matters. Mr. Manohar has also stated in the affidavit that the papers in his office remained unattended due to oversight and pressure of work and for this reason the filing of the petitions was delayed. There is no counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents challenging this statement. The effect of delay in filing a writ petition has been considered by the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SC 259). The relevant head note is as follows : (at p. 265) "The rule which says that a Court may not enquire into belated or stale claims is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. The question is one of discretion to be followed on the facts of each case."

(3.) Thus it will not be open for the respondents to contend that this petition should be dismissed simply because they are filed late. This is more so when the petitioner's advocate Mr. Manohar has filed an affidavit explaining therein the reason for not filing the writ petitions diligently. On account of the oversight and pressure of work of the advocate the delay has occurred. In these peculiar circumstances, I do not think that the petitions should be dismissed simply because they are filed late.