KESHEORAO versus NARNARAYAN & ANOTHER

KESHEORAO versus NARNARAYAN & ANOTHER

The tenancy was terminated by final order under section 9A of the Berar Act and whatever rights under the Berar Act ceased on expiry of the statutory period. The landlord neither recognised nor acquiesced in tenancy post-termination. Timely application for possession under the Tenancy Act was made and not barred by limitation. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to possession.

Parties
Appellant: Kesheorao; Respondent: Narnarayan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 February 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated 1.2.1968 of the Bombay High Court (nagpur Bench)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recovery of Possession, Protected Tenancy, Minor Lessor Rights, Resumption of Land, Limitation Period
Tenancy Constitutional Law Recovery of Possession Protected Tenancy Minor Lessor Rights Resumption of Land Limitation Period

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kesheorao

Appellant

Narnarayan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated 1.2.1968 of the Bombay High Court (nagpur Bench)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant continued to be a tenant after termination under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act
  2. 2 Whether the landlord acquiesced in tenancy after termination
  3. 3 Whether application for possession was barred by limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The tenancy was terminated by final order under section 9A of the Berar Act and whatever rights under the Berar Act ceased on expiry of the statutory period. The landlord neither recognised nor acquiesced in tenancy post-termination. Timely application for possession under the Tenancy Act was made and not barred by limitation. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Landlord entitled to possession after crops of 1967-68 are removed
  • Parties to bear their own costs