Bachawat, J. - (1.) The appellant is the landlord and respondent No. 1 is the tenant of S. Nos. 180 and 132 of village Dhanyal, taluk Bijapur. Respondent No. 1 defaulted in payment of rent for the years 1951-52, 1953-54 and 1954-55. On December 8, 1956, the appellant served on respondent No. 1 three months' notice in writing under section 14(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. 57 of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act, terminating the tenancy on the ground of default in payment of rent. On June 24, 1957, the appellant filed an application under S. 29(2) read with S. 14(1) of the Tenancy Act for possession of the land. The Tahsildar, Bijapur allowed the application, and directed possession of the land to be delivered to the appellant. This order was affirmed on appeal by the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur. On revision. the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the first two tribunals and dismissed the application. A petition by the appellant under Art. 227 of the Constitution was summarily rejected by the Mysore High Court. The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave.
(2.) The Tribunals below concurrently found that respondent No. 1 defaulted in payment of the rent for the years 1951-52, 1953-54, and 1954-55, the last default took place on May 20, 1955 and the tenancy was properly terminated by the appellant. The first two Tribunals also held that the application was filed within the time allowed by law. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the application being filed more than two years after May 20. 1955 is barred by limitation. The sole question before us is whether the application was filed within the two years' period of limitation prescribed by S. 29(2) of the Tenancy Act. The appellant contends that the application was filed within the prescribed period of limitation because (1) the right of the appellant to obtain possession of the land is deemed to have accrued to him on the termination of the tenancy by the notice given on December 8, 1956, (2) in any event, in computing the two years period of limitation, the period of the three months notice should be excluded in view of S. 15(2) read with S. 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. We are of the opinion that the first contention of the appellant should be accepted. In view of this conclusion, we do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant.
(3.) Sections 14(1) and 29(2) of the Tenancy Act, as they stood at the relevant time, are as follows:- "14. (1) Notwithstanding any law, agreement or usage, or the decree or order of a Court, the tenancy of any land shall not be terminated- (a) unless the tenant- (i) has failed to pay the rent for any revenue years before the 31st day of March thereof; (ii) has done any act which is destructive or permanently injurious to the land; (iii) has sub-divided, sub-let or assigned the land in contravention of S. 27; (iv) has failed to cultivate it personally; or (v) has used such land for a purpose other than agriculture or allied pursuits, and (b) unless the landlord has given three months' notice in writing informing the tenant of his decision to terminate the tenancy and the ground for such termination, and within that period the tenant has failed to remedy the breach for which the tenancy is liable to be termined." 29(2) No landlord shall obtain possession of any land or dwelling house held by a tenant except under an order of the Mamlatdar. For obtaining such order he shall make an application in the prescribed form and within a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land or dwelling house, as the case may be, is deemed to have accrued to him." ;