DIGAMBER GOPINATH SUTAR Vs. JAIRAM KRISHNA MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlord challenges the order dated 16-9-1986 of the Tahsildar, buldana; the order dated 31-3-1987 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldana; as well as the order dated 29-12-1989 of the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, Nagpur, in respect of the possession of the land asked for under section 36 (2) read with section 21 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ).

(2.) THE property involved is an area of 5. 37 acres of Survey No. 21/1 of Village Bhadola, taluka and District Buldana. The present petitioner is the owner of the property and the present respondent No. 1 is a tenant of it from 7-5-1967. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent-tenant was the partner with the present petitioner as per the partnership deed dated 4-12-1968 in respect of this property and, as such should have delivered the possession to the petitioner after the expiry of the period of partnership. On failure, the present petitioner then approached the Civil Court in Regular Civil suit No. 34 of 1973 for possession of the property and in pursuance of the plea raised by the respondent in respect of the tenancy of the property, the matter was referred to the tahsildar, Chikhli, under section 125 of the said act. The respondent was then held to be a tenant by the Tahsildar; and the appeals filed by the present petitioner to the Sub-Divisional Officer, buldana; and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, nagpur, were dismissed. The petitioner also approached this Court in Writ Petition, which also came to be rejected by this Court. The petitioner-landlord then moved the Tenancy Authorities, i. e. , the Tahsildar, Buldana, for possession under section 36 (2) read with section 21 of the said act. The case was numbered as 2/tnc/59/85-86, and by an order dated 16-9-1986, the application came to be rejected by the Tahsildar. The matter was then carried in Revenue Appeal No. TNC/bhadola/7/86-87, and the Sub-Divisional officer, Buldana, dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 31-3-1987, confirming the order of the tahsildar. Revision bearing No. Tenancy-A/97/87 to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur also came to be dismissed by an order dated 29-12-1989. It is against these orders that the present petitioner has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) SHRI Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord, submitted that all the authorities below have committed an error in rejecting this application on the ground that it was not within the period stipulated by section 36 (2) of the said Act. It is further submitted that the present application was under section 21 of the said Act, and for such an application, the limitation prescribed by section 36 (2) of the said act was of two years.