- (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 : "8. (1). Notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court of law, the lease of any land held by a protected lessee shall not be determined except under orders of a Revenue Officer made on any of the following grounds, namely:-- ..... (c) he has partitioned the leasehold right; ..... (f) he has transferred his interest under the lease in contravention of Section 7." With the above mentioned allegation of partition and transfer, Trimbak made an application on 24-9-1955. That application was originally registered and numbered. However, after remand, it was again renumbered as Rev. Case No. 1/59 (1-B)/55-56. With regard to other two Section Nos. 102/2 and 104/1, Trimbak alleged that the tenant Pundalik, respondent No. 1 has transferred, partitioned and sub-let, these two lands in favour of Keshao and Zipa (respondents 2 and 3). Trimbak, therefore, filed another application which was 1/59 (4-A)/ 65-66 (this number was given after the matter was remanded by the appellate authority) for an order for terminating the tenancy with respect to these lands. Under the Berar Act, the applications are required to be made to the Sub-Divisional Officer (S. D. O.). It is not necessary to give details as to how these applications were originally decided and later on remanded for enquiry by the appellate authority. Suffice it to say that both the applications were pending on 30-12-1958 when the Tenancy Act came into force and the Berar Act was repealed. Section 132 of the Bombay Tenancy Act deals as to how a proceeding filed under the Berar Act should be dealt with. Sub-section (2) is concerned with the rights and obligations already acquired or incurred under the Berar Act. For deciding these petitions, the relevant provision is Sub-section (3), which reads as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2)- (a) all proceedings for the termination of the tenancy and ejectment of a tenant or for the recovery or restoration of the possession of the land under the provisions of the enactments so repealed, pending on the date of the commencement of this Act before a Revenue Officer or in appeal or revision before any appellate or revising authority shall be deemed to have been instituted and pending before the corresponding authority under this Act and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act... ... ... " Thus, these proceedings went to the Naib Tahsildar for being dealt with. The Naib Tahsildar, after holding the enquiry and recording evidence, held that the tenant respondent No. 1 had sub-let the holdings in favour of respondents 2 and 3, the order was passed in favour of the petitioner that the possession of the lands be restored to him. The respondents preferred appeal No. 12/59 (10-B)/ 67-68. (This appeal was against Rev. C. No. 1/59 (1-B) and Appeal No. 11/59 (10-B) was against the decision in Rev. C. No. 1/59 (1-A)). Both these appeals were dismissed on 13-2-1969. The respondents took the matters to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M R. T.) in revision. The revisions were Ten-A-368/69 and Ten-A-369/69. The M. R. T. allowed the revisions and dismissed the applications filed by the landlord Trimbak. This dismissal was principally on the ground that the applications filed by Trimbak were bad as he had not added his brother Keshao as a party to the proceedings. There is also an observation that there was a dispute as regards the validity of the lease-deed dated 30-4-1951. It appears that at the stage of the arguments a contention was raised that the said lease-deed was a forgery and the M. R. T. has observed that it was necessary to find out as to whether the lease-deed dated 30-4-1951 was genuine or not. Of course, the only ground on which the revision applications have been allowed is that the proceedings were bad for not joining Keshao as a party. These orders of the M. R. T. are being challenged in the present writ petitions.
(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.;