Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype And Others vs Aba Maruti Mali And Others on 1 December, 1961
The learned counsel of the respondents referred to the decision of the supreme court in Rajaram Mahadeo Paranjype v. Aba maruti Mali, which has interpreted the effect of sub - section (2) of S. 25 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948. In view of the principle Land on which that case is decided it must he held that the statute itself having given aright to the defaulting tenants to further grant a right to the defaulting there was hardly any further power in the Tahsildar to extent that time over again in the guise was exercising powers, as it were afresh under the proviso. The proviso and the main sub - section (1) of S. 30 has to be read together and are a part and parcel on the same scheme under which the statute permits the defaulting tenant to get and extended period payment of arrears of the rent, ordinarily as matter of course for three months, but in case of failure to make payment due to failure or crops or similar calamity up to a period on the one year. This provision cannot locus paenitentiar with out payment of remerely because an order passed by the Tahsildar be interpreted as being further locus paentientia without payment of remerey because an order passed by the Tahsildar under S. 30 (1) may come to b made in a year in which there may be failure of the crops. Once this arguments of accepted it would lead to somewhat starting result it would mean that the tenant of would be entitle to claim mean relief by way of further extension of to time by a year from the date fixed for payment of areas of rent under sub section (1) of S. 30 on, account of failure of crops in year in which Tahsildar comes to pass the orders. I do not think that t he legislature intended any such result to follow from the proviso to sub -section (1) of S. 30 of the new Tenancy act.
Section 25 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Sonajee Krishnajee Majumdar vs Nathu Yadav Patil on 23 July, 1958
(11) The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a Division Bench decision of this court reported in Sonajee Krishnajee Mujumdar v. Nathu Yadao Patil, ILR [1959] Bom 629. That decision pertain to interpretation of Ss. 29 and 25 and the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
1