HARISHCHANDRA SHANKAR THAKUR Vs. ROCKEY JOSEPH REBELLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 31st January, 1985 in TEN:a: 275 of 1979.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the petitioner claims to be the brother of one Sunder Shankar Thakur, respondent No. 5 herein. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 had wrongfully surrendered the tenancy in respect of the suit land in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the landlords. This Court is really not concerned with the factual matrix of the matter, as the short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is-whether in absence of a formal application for setting aside the abatement, and for condonation of delay in applying for setting aside the abatement accompanying the application for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased respondent in the proceedings which is unquestionably barred by time, can be entertained? As mentioned before, the petitioner challenged the factum of surrender of tenancy by the respondent No. 5 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by an application before the tenancy authority. That authority rejected the claim against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was also rejected. Against that order, the petitioner preferred revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 2nd July, 1979. While the said revision application was pending, respondent No. 2, one of the landlords expired on 15th August, 1980. The revision application, however, came up for admission on 21st February, 1981 and the Tribunal was pleased to admit the same. Thereafter, the revision application came up for hearing on 16th July, 1984 on which date, according to the petitioner, for the first time he got the knowledge of death of respondent No. 2. It is the petitioners case that after making necessary enquiries, he filed the subject application for bringing the heirs of respondent No. 2 on record on 24th July, 1984. Besides filing that application, an affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal dated 19th December, 1984. Be that as it may, it is undisputed that there is no prayer for setting aside the abatement and for condonation of delay in applying for setting aside the abatement in the subject application filed before the Tribunal or for that matter having filed a formal application for such reliefs although the subject application was filed beyond limitation. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by the impugned order has not only dismissed the said application preferred by the petitioner for bringing the heirs of respondent No. 2 on record, but also the revision application as having abated as against that respondent. This order is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.