Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)The Punjab Tenancy Rules
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Nilesh Construction Company And Anr. vs Gangubai And Ors. on 26 April, 1982
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that even the issue regarding tenancy does not arise from a more vague plea of tenancy. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tenant has failed to indicate any detail whatsoever. He has not indicated as to how the alleged tenancy was created, by whom it was created and what were the terms and conditions of such alleged tenancy. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Nilesh Construction Co. and Anr. v. Mrs. Gangubai and Ors. wherein it has been held that before a reference to the Mamlatdar for deciding the issue of tenancy under the Tenancy Act is made, the alleged tenant must disclose in his pleadings details about the tenancy and the exact nature of the right which is claimed by him and an issue of tenancy cannot be raised on a vague plea.
Pandu Dhondi Yerudkar And Anr. vs Ananda Krishna Patil on 12 April, 1973
The Division Bench had relied on the earlier judgment in the case of Pondu Dhondi Yerudkar and Anr. v. Ananda Krishna Patil the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court observed that 'When a vague plea is made by the defendant contending that he is a tenant of the land the court should hesitate to frame such an issue on such a vague plea unless the defendant is able to give particulars showing the time when the tenancy was created, the person by whom it was created and terms on which it was created. However, in para 4 the Bombay High Court held that "Whenever an issue as regards tenancy is framed the court has no other option but to refer such issue for decision to the authorities under the Act." In para 5 a pious hope was expressed that the Legislature should intervene to give discretion to the civil court to consider whether a bona fide dispute or question arises in a suit, which is required to be determined under the Tenancy Act so as to defeat vague and frivolous pleas at the threshold. However, the Legislature has not acted on that suggestion. Therefore the question still remains within the exclusive jurisdiction or the tenancy court. In the present case the issues have already been raised by the lower appellate court and they are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tenancy court and, therefore, at this stage and in these civil proceedings, there is no jurisdiction to go into the questions which are essentially required to be decided by the tenancy court.
1