{"id":310017,"date":"2023-12-24T11:00:31","date_gmt":"2023-12-24T05:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=310017"},"modified":"2023-12-24T10:28:42","modified_gmt":"2023-12-24T04:58:42","slug":"ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment | Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 are not applicable to cases cognizable by Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in Revenue Court [(1952) 2 SCC 443]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> Respondents did not hand over the possession of lands to appellants despite the Civil Court’s decree and thus, appellant filed a suit for mesne profits before the Revenue Court claiming Rs. 5249 whereas, the Revenue Court granted only Rs. 435-15-0 in view of the limitation imposed under Section 233(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (‘the Act’). The 4-Judges Bench of Mehr Chand Mahajan, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose*<\/span> and Ghulam Hasan, JJ., held that Sections 290 and 291 of the Act had no application to cases which were only cognizable by the Civil Courts but were wrongly instituted in a Revenue Court. The Supreme Court opined that if applicability of Section 290 of the Act was sought then it must be conceded that suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

Appellant filed an appeal in a suit for a co-sharer’s profits in 78.7 acres of land, situated in Village Pohriya in Gorakhpur District. In 1913, the Thakurs, Respondents 6 to 9, sold 2 acres share to the Tewaris, Respondents 1 to 5. In 1914, the Thakurs mortgaged their 14 acres to the Tewaris by way of usufructuary mortgage and during the time the Tewaris were in possession, they ejected tenants from time to time and obtained 78.7 acres from them. On 14-06-1932, the Thakurs executed a second mortgage in favour of Appellant 1, a Sugar Mill Company. Appellant 1 redeemed the first mortgage, as it was entitled to do, and thus stepped into the shoes of the first mortgagee. In this capacity, Appellant 1 claimed 14 acres interest in the 78.7 acres which the Tewaris had obtained, and as the Tewaris did not acknowledge Appellant 1’s right, Appellant 1 was obliged to sue for joint possession and mesne profits. The suit was filed in 1933 and the claim was decreed in 1936. Appellant was then given formal possession under Order 21 Rule 35<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>. The mesne profits were ascertained in due course and a decree followed on 19-08-1938 for the profits of the Fasli years 1341 to 1344.<\/p>\n

Despite the Civil Court’s decree, respondents refused to hand over any mesne profits in the succeeding years. Thus, appellant brought the present suit for profits for the Fasli years 1345 to 1347. The suit purported to be under Section 231 of the Act and so was filed in the Revenue Court. Appellant claimed Rs. 5249, but the court decreed only Rs. 435-15.0 with Rs 49-0-3 for interest and dismissed the rest of the claim because of the limitations imposed by Section 233(2) of the Act. Appellant thereafter appealed to the Allahabad High Court (‘High Court’) but failed.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court noted appellant’s submission that if this was a suit under Section 231 of the Act, then the decisions of the Courts below were right, as Section 233(2) of the Act was called into operation and the computation made by the Trial Court on that basis was unassailable, but appellant contended that this was not a suit under Section 231 of the Act at all and that it was wrong to call it so. The Supreme Court further noted appellant’s submission that the present case was for mesne profits, and it should have been instituted in and tried by a Civil Court and not a Revenue Court and that the High Court should have exercised the powers conferred on it by Section 290 of the Act and treated the suit as if it had been instituted in the right court, namely, Civil Court, and on that basis should have decreed the whole claim free from the limitations imposed by Section 233(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that Section 290 of the Act did not help appellant on the issue of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court relied on Section 290 of the Act and held that Sections 290 and 291 of the Act had no application to cases which were only cognizable by the Civil Courts but were wrongly instituted in a Revenue Court.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court further opined that if appellant sought the application of Section 290 of the Act, then he was bound to concede that the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Revenue Court, and that in this case meant that the suit was one under Section 231 of the Act. If the suit was under Section 231 of the Act, then Section 233(2) of the Act was at once attracted and the decision of the Courts below was right. On the other hand, if appellant’s case was, that this was a suit of a civil nature with which the Revenue Courts were not concerned, his proper course was to seek the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court and as he did not do that in the Courts below and even in the Supreme Court insisted on the application of Section 290 of the Act, thus this Court could not in the particular circumstances of this case permit him to adopt that course at this late stage. The Supreme Court thus dismissed the appeal with costs.<\/p>\n

[Punjab Sugar Mill Company Ltd. v. Lachman Prasad Tewari, (1952) 2 SCC 443<\/a>, decided on 12-11-1952<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Justice Vivian Bose<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Ed. Note: U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939<\/p>\n

Section 290 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (‘the Act’) states that when in a suit instituted in a Civil or Revenue Court, an appeal lies to the District Judge or to the High Court, an objection that the suit was instituted in the wrong court shall not be entertained by the Appellate Court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance; and the Appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal as if the suit had been instituted in the right court. Section 291 of the Act states the procedure that needs to be followed if an objection was raised under Section 290 of the Act.<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellants: Gopinath Kunzru, Senior Advocate (Jindra Lal, Advocate, with him)<\/p>\n

For the Respondents: M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India (G.C. Mathur, Advocate, with him)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Sections 290 and 291 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":310028,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[2822,10551,58925,63805,57950,63807,63806,5363,63808],"class_list":["post-310017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-Allahabad_High_Court","tag-civil-court","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-nrj","tag-revenue-court","tag-section-291","tag-sections-290","tag-supreme-court","tag-u-p-tenancy-act-1939"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment on Sections 290, 291 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 were not applicable to cases cognizable by the Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in the Revenue Court.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment | Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 are not applicable to cases cognizable by Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in Revenue Court [(1952) 2 SCC 443]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 were not applicable to cases cognizable by the Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in the Revenue Court.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-12-24T05:30:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment | Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 are not applicable to cases cognizable by Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in Revenue Court [(1952) 2 SCC 443]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment on Sections 290, 291 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-12-24T05:30:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court held that Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 were not applicable to cases cognizable by the Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in the Revenue Court.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"U.P. Tenancy Act 1939\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment | Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 are not applicable to cases cognizable by Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in Revenue Court [(1952) 2 SCC 443]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment on Sections 290, 291 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 | SCC Blog","description":"Supreme Court held that Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 were not applicable to cases cognizable by the Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in the Revenue Court.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment | Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 are not applicable to cases cognizable by Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in Revenue Court [(1952) 2 SCC 443]","og_description":"Supreme Court held that Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 were not applicable to cases cognizable by the Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in the Revenue Court.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-12-24T05:30:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment | Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 are not applicable to cases cognizable by Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in Revenue Court [(1952) 2 SCC 443]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/","name":"Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment on Sections 290, 291 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.webp","datePublished":"2023-12-24T05:30:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Supreme Court held that Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 were not applicable to cases cognizable by the Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in the Revenue Court.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"U.P. Tenancy Act 1939"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/24\/ss-290-291-u-p-tenancy-act-not-applicable-to-cases-cognizable-by-civil-courts-but-wrongly-instituted-in-revenue-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment | Sections 290, 291 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 are not applicable to cases cognizable by Civil Courts but wrongly instituted in Revenue Court [(1952) 2 SCC 443]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/U.P.-Tenancy-Act-1939.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":255099,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/02\/explained-a-very-strange-provision-section-85a-of-the-maharashtra-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948\/","url_meta":{"origin":310017,"position":0},"title":"Explained| “A very strange provision”: Section 85A of the\u00a0Maharashtra\u00a0Tenancy\u00a0and\u00a0Agricultural\u00a0Lands Act,\u00a01948","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has explained the scope of a \u201cvery strange provision\u201d under Section 85A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and has held that \u201cThough Section 85(2) mandates that no order of the\u00a0 Mamlatdar, the Tribunal, the Collector\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":260866,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/31\/civil-court-has-no-jurisdiction-in-dispute-relating-to-property-governed-by-the-haryana-control-of-rent-eviction-act-1973-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":310017,"position":1},"title":"Civil Court has no jurisdiction in dispute relating to property governed by the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973: SC","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 31, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ has held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred under the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and a tenant can only be evicted under the provisions of the said Act. Factual Background The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-64.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-64.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-64.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-64.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-64.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295105,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/21\/undertaking-of-licensee-does-not-end-revocation-of-license-section-5-electricity-act-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":310017,"position":2},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| \u2018Undertaking\u2019 of licensee does not come to an end on revocation of licence under S.5 of Electricity Act, 1910: SC","author":"Simranjeet","date":"June 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment, dating back to the year 1950, on Section 5 of the Electricity Act, 1910.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"section 5 of electricity act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-5-of-electricity-act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-5-of-electricity-act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-5-of-electricity-act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-5-of-electricity-act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256324,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/31\/explained-what-invalidates-surrender-of-tenancy-under-the-andhra-pradesh-tenancy-andhra-area-act-1956\/","url_meta":{"origin":310017,"position":3},"title":"Explained| What invalidates surrender of tenancy under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act, 1956?","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 31, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Interpreting the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act, 1956, the bench of UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ has laid down the twin conditions that make a valid surrender of tenancy, firstly, three months\u2019 notice in writing to the landlord, and the Special Officer\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213843,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/22\/mp-hc-appeal-in-tenancy-matter-dismissed-in-absence-of-substantial-question-of-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":310017,"position":4},"title":"MP HC | Appeal in tenancy matter dismissed in absence\u00a0 of substantial question of law","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 22, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: This second appeal was filed before the Bench of Vivek Rusia, J., by appellant against the judgment and decree passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Indore whereby appeal was partly allowed while affirming the judgment and decree passed under Section 12 (1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":330596,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/11\/muslim-wife-filed-divorce-under-dissolution-of-muslim-marriage-act-entitled-to-receive-interim-maintenance-under-s-151-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":310017,"position":5},"title":"Can Muslim wife claim interim maintenance under S.151 CPC while seeking divorce under Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act? Madras HC answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 11, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cSince the legislature cannot contemplate a solution to all the problems that are presented in Society. Within the broad framework that is laid down by the legislature, Courts will have to find a solution to the individual cases.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/310017","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=310017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/310017\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/310028"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=310017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=310017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=310017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}