Appeal No 85 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 19 1966 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No 831 of 1965 W section Barlingay and A G Ratnaparkhi for the appellant M section Gupta and section K Dhingra for respondent No 1
The appellant was a protected lessee within the meaning of that expression contained in the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act 1951 Act 24 of 1951 75 hereinafter called the Berar Act in respect of the suit lands bearing survey No 23 of an extent of 7 acres and 4 gunthas under the 5th respondent herein who was then the original owner of the lands
The 5th respondent served on the appellant hereinafter called the tenant a notice dated December 28 1955 under section 91 of the Berar Act terminating the I tenancy of the appellant on the ground that he required the lands for personal cultivation and he also submitted an application to the Revenue Officer under section 81g of the Berar Act for an order determining the tenancy
The 5th respondent obtained an order from the Revenue Officer on May IS 1956 directing the tenant to surrender possession of the lands
The 5th respondent in pursuance of the order of the Revenue Officer obtained possession of the lands on April 4 1957 and continued in such possession till June 21 1961 on which date he transferred the suit lands to the first respondent hereinafter to be referred as the landlord and got in exchange 8 acres in survey No 33 plus an amount of Rs 13000 
in the meanwhile on December 30 1958 the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region and Kutch area Act of 1958 Act No XCIX of 1958 hereinafter called the Bombay Act came into force
The tenant filed an application under section 52 of the Bombay Act before the Naib Tahsildar Achalpur against respondent Nos 1 and 5 for restoration of the possession of the suit lands on the ground that the original owner the 5th respondent had eased to cultivate the lands personally within the period of 12 years after obtaining possession of the lands on April 4 1957
The Naib Tahsildar by his order dated November 14 1962 dismissed the application on the ground that section 52 does not apply and hence the application was not maintainable
On appeal by the tenant the Special Deputy Collector Amravati by his order June 30 1964 reversed the decision of the Naib Tahsildar and directed the landlord to restore possession of the lands as prayed for by the tenant
The first respondent s revision challenging the order of the Special Deputy Collector was dismissed on August 5 1965 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
The Revenue Tribunal while dismissing the revision petition inter alia held that the tenant was a protected lessee and that in pursuance of the proceedings taken by the 5th respondent in terms of the notice tinder section 91 of the Berar Act the tenant was deprived of the lands and his tenancy rights on the ground of personal cultivation by the then owner of the lands
The Tribunal further held that as the 5th respondent had transferred the suit lands in favour of the first respondent on June 21 1961
 the former must be considered to have failed to use the lands for the purposes specified in his notice within 12 years from the date on which lie took possession and in consequence the tenant 76 was entitled to be restored to possession under section 52 of the Bombay Act
On this reasoning the Revenue Tribunal confirm ed the order of restoration passed by the Special
Deputy Collector in favour of the tenant
The first respondent filed a writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution being Special Civil Application No 831 of 1965 in the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench challenging the orders restoration
passed against him by the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
The High Court by its judgment and order dated August 19 1966 has set aside the orders of the Special Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal thus restoring the order of the Naib Tahsildar land has dismissed the application for restoration tiled by the tenant
The tenant challenges the decision of the High Court in this appeal by special leave
The High Court in its order under appeal has recorded the following findings The original owner the 5th respondent was entitled to terminate the lease of the tenant by giving a notice under section 91 of the Berar Act
He accordingly terminated the tenancy by giving notice dated December 23 1955
After initiating proceedings under section 81g read with section 191 of the Berar Act the owner also obtained possession of the lands on April 4 1957
Under the Berar Act there was a duty cast on the landlord to cultivate the lands personally for a period of 2 years and in this case the 5th respondent has complied with this requirement
As possession was taken from the tenant by the 5th respondent when the Berar Act was in operation and as the latter had cultivated the lands for a period of 2 years as required by section 96 of the Berar Act the tenant had ceased to have any rights after the expiry of the period of 2 years and
hence section 52 of the Bombay Act was not applicable and it follows that the application for restoration under that section filed by the tenant was not maintainable
The position is concluded against the tenant by an earlier Full Bench decision of the High Court reported in Saraswatibai Babji Tukaram Umarkar vs Bhikamchand Peemsukhdas1 wherein it had been held that when possession of the lands had been taken before coming into force of the Bombay Act the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the Berar Act and that section 52 of the Bombay Act has no retrospective operation
On these findings the High Court allowed the writ petition of the first respondent
Dr Barlingay learned counsel for the appellant has urged that having due regard to the scheme of the Berar and Bombay Acts the High Court s view that section 52 of the Bombay Act has no application is erroneous
In this case
he pointed out that the 1 77 Bombay Act has come into force on December 30 1958 even before the expiry of the period of two years from April 4 1957 on which date the original owner the 5th respondent had entered into possession after terminating the lease
Section 52  of the Bombay Act contains provisions substantially similar to section 96 of the Berar Act which was repealed and the only change was that the Bombay Act enlarged the period for which the landlord was required to continue to cultivate land personally from two years to 12 years
As the enlarged period under the Bombay Act has come into operation before the expiry of the shorter period under the Berar Act which was repealed the landlord was bound to conform to the requirements of the larger period provided under the Bombay Act
In this case the 5th respondent had transferred the suit lands to the first respondent on June 21 1961 and hence there has been a failure in law on the part of the 5th respondent to utilise the lands for the purpose of personal cultivation for the period mentioned in section 52 of the Bombay Act and so the said section fully applies and the dismissal of the tenant s application for restoration by the High Court is
opposed to the mandatory provisions of the Bombay Act
The counsel further pointed out that the Full Bench decision on which the present judgment of the High Court is rested is not applicable for the reason that the Full Bench was dealing with a case where the period provided under section 96 of the Berar Act had already expired before the coming into force of the Bombay Act whereas in the case on hand even before the expiry of that two years  period the Bombay Act has come into force
This material difference has not been noted in the present order by the High Court
He further urged that if the Full Bench decision applies as held by the High Court it should be held
by this Court that the Full Bench decision is not correct
Mr M section Gupta
learned counsel for the first respondent landlord raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal and prayed for cancellation of the special leave granted by this Court on January 11 1967
According to him the appellant has made deliberately certain false statements in his application for grant of special leave
We will revert to this aspect a little later
On merits Mr Gupta contended that the obligation of his client s transferor the 5th respondent after obtaining possession of the lands from the tenant under the Berar Act was only to cultivate the lands for two years
Admittedly in this case the 5th respondent had cultivated the lands for the said period of two years and the obligation incurred by him under section 96 of the Berar Act having been duly complied with 78 pointed out that section 132 deals with repeals and savings
Subsection 1 had repealed the enactments specified in Schedule I to the extent specified in column No 4 of the said Schedule
Schedule I shows that the Berar Act has been repealed in its entirety
Notwithstanding the repeal sub section 2 has saved certain matters and on of the matters so saved is the obligation or liability already incurred before the commencement of the Bombay Act
The 5th respondent who had incurred the obligation or liability to cultivate the lands for two years under the Berar Act before the commencement of the Bombay Act has discharged the said obligation or liability and hence the tenant has no further rights which he can enforce
He also urged that section 52_protects even cases where possession has beer
taken after the coming into force of the Bombay Act on the basis of an order for restoration obtained under the Berar Act
In support of his contention he relied on the decision in Ramchandra vs Tukaram and others1
Before we deal with the merits we will now dispose of the preliminary objection raised by Mr Gupta praying or cancellation of special leave granted by this Court
According to the learned counsel the appellant has deliberately made certain false statements in the application for grant of special leave and has misguided the Court
He drew our attention to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the application wherein the appellant has stated that the 5th respondent had transferred the suit lands in favour of the first respondent on June 21 1961 by taking in exchange 8 acres of land plus a sum of Rs 30000 
Again in paragraph 10 of the petition the appellant has stated that his claim in these proceedings is for restoration of possession of the lands measuring 7 acres and 4 gunthas the market value of which happens to be more than Rs 20000 and that this fact is further strengthened because of the 5th respondent exchanging his lands with the first respondent for a sum of Rs 30000 plus 8 acres of land
The appellant has filed an affidavit stating that the statements contained in the special leave petition are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge 
From these statements Mr Gupta pointed out that it is clear that the appellant has categorically stated that the value of the lands concerned in this appeal is over Rs 20000 and he has also specifically stated that the suit land were exchanged for Rs 30000 plus 8 acres of lands and these statements have been affirmed to be true to the personal knowledge of the appellant
Mr Gupta pointed out that these statements regarding valua tion are absolutely false to the knowledge of the appellant as will 1 1966 1SCR 594 79 be clear from the value given in the writ petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court
In para 1 of the writ petition the first respondent has stated that the 5th respondent after transfering the suit lands of 7 acres and 4 gunthas has taken in exchange from him 8 acres of land and a sum of Rs 13000  thus making a total of Rs 19000 
In the affidavit filed along with the writ petition the first respondent has again stated that the amount received from him along with 8 acres of land as Rs 13000 the total value of the lands being only Rs 19000 
He also drew our attention to the recitals in the judgment printed in the appeal records wherein the exchange has been stated as being of 8 acres of land plus a sum of Rs 13000 
In view of these circumstances the counsel points out that the statements made by the appellant which have been affirmed to be true to his knowledge about valuation of the suit lands being over Rs 20000 and the exchange having been obtained of 8 acres and Rs 30000 are false and have been deliberately made to mislead the Court so as to obtain special leave making it appear that the requirement regarding valuation is satisfied
Mr Gupta drew out attention to the decisions of this Court namely Hari Narain vs Badri Das1 Sita Bai vs Sonu Vanji Wani and ors2 and section R Shetty vs Phirozeshah Nusserwanji Golabawalla and another3
Mr Gupta pointed out that in all these decisions when there has been false statements made on material particulars or matters of importance either on facts or about valuation this Court bad cancelled special leave already granted
The proposition enunciated by Mr Gupta that the statements in the special leave application should not contain any untrue or false statements either in material particulars or on matters of importance or about valuation is certainly laid down in those decisions and the requirement in this regard cannot be over emphasised
In Hari Narain vs Badri Das1 this Court held that the special leave petition contained inaccurate untrue and misleading statements and cancelled special leave already granted
This Court observed at page 209 as follows  It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate untrue or misleading
In dealing with applications for special leave the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading 1  2 CA No 982 of 1965 decided on 25 4 1968
3 GA No 155 of 1963 decided on 25 4 1963
80 From the facts in that case it will be seen that the material statements made in the special leave petition were false
In Sita Bai vs Sonu Vanji Wanil and ors
1 this Court held that in the special leave petition there was a misrepresentation of facts on a matter of importance though it was not possible to say that when granting special leave these untrue facts had misled the Court
It has been further emphasised in this decision that the appellant had deliberately made untrue statements on matters of importance and that they were not the result of inadvertence
Similarly in section R Shetty vs Phirozeshah Nusserwanji Golabawalla and another2 a statement had been made regarding the value of the subject matter as being above Rs 20000 though the suit had been valued only in the sum of Rs 5001 and court fee paid on that valuation
This Court held that the statements of valuation in the plaint namely Rs 5001 cannot be reconciled with the statement regarding valuation in the special leave application and this Court took the view that the valuation has been deliberately inflated with a view to getting over the preliminary hurdle as regards valuation
In this view special leave granted was revoked
If it is held that there has been an untrue averment regarding material statements or a false statement on matters of importance or a deliberate untrue statement regarding valuationhas been made to mislead this Court it cannot be gainsaid that thespecial
leave granted by this Court will have to be revoked
Dr Barlingay pointed out that there has been nountrue or false statement made by his client on any material particular nor has any statement been deliberately made to mislead the Court so as to enable his client to obtain special leave
On the other hand the counsel pointed out that the certified copy of the judgment of the High Court furnished to his client and which has been filed in this Court clearly shows that in the said copy the High Court has stated that the 5th respondent obtained an exchange from the first respondent 8 acres of land plus a sum of Rs 30000 
That mistaken value given in the High Court judgment has been adopted in the special leave petition
The points that have been raised in the special leave petition are all I questions of law relating to legal effect of possession under the Berar Act after coming into force of the Bombay Act
The valuation
given in the certified copy of the High Court judgment was incorporated in the special leave petition filed as early as January 11
He further pointed out that on March 28 1967 his client had moved the High Court for correcting the High Court s 1 Civil Appeal No 982 of 1965 decided on 25 4 68
2 CIVIL Appeal No 155 of 1963 decided on 5 4 1963 81 judgment by deleting the valuation of Rs 30000 and substitute the same by correct figure of Rs 13000 
The counsel for both the parties agreed before the High Court that the figure of Rs 30000 contained in the judgment was an error and that the correct figure should be Rs 13000 
The High Court accordingly by its order dated April 17 1967 corrected the judgment by stating that the valuation of Rs 30000 should be corrected to Rs 13000 
That order was passed nearly three months after the special leave application was filed in this Court
In view of the fact that his client and the counsel acting for him at the time of drafting the petition for special leave adopted the valuation given in the certified copy of the High Court s judgment Dr Barlingay pointed out that there has been no untrue or false statement given by his client so as to justify revocation of
the leave already ranted
We have given due consideration to all these aspects presented before us by both the learned counsel and we are of the view that in the particular circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the appellant is guilty of making any false or untrue statement on any material particulars or matters of importance or regarding valuation
The mistake committed by the appellant regarding valuation was the result of the mistaken value given by the High Court itself in its judgment which was corrected only long afterwards
No doubt the appellant who is a party to the proceedings should have been a little more careful but that does not disclose any deliberate attempt on his part to mislead this Court
Further the statement regarding valuation is not of much consequence in this case because the questions arising for decision are really points of law regarding applicability of either the Berar or Bombay Acts
Therefore Mr Gupta has not been able to make out a case for cancelling the special leave already granted
We will now proceed to consider the appeal on merits
The suit land was originally in the Vidarbha Region which before the passing of Bombay Act of 1958 was part of the state of Madhya Pradesh and the tenancy of the appellant was governed by the Berar Act
As proceedings had been taken by the 5th respondent for evicting the appellant and for possession of the land under the Berar Act it is necessary to refer to some of the material provisions of that statute
Section 2h defines a protected lessee as a protected lessee within the meaning of section 3
Section 3 enumerates various lessees who are protected lessees
There is no controversy that the appellant before us was a protected lessee under the Berar Act
Section 81 enumerates in cls
a to g the rounds on which 82 the lease of a land held by a protected lessee can be got terminated under the orders of a Revenue Officer
One of the grounds for eviction is provided under clg of section g1 namely lessee having been served with the notice by a landholder as provided in section 9
Section 9 deals with the right of the landholder to terminate the lease of a protected lessee
Sub sections 1 and 6 of the said section which are material for the present purpose are as follows  Right of landholder to terminate lease of a protected lessee
Section 9 1
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 8 the landholder may terminate the lease of a protected lessee by giving him notice in writing delivered not less than three months before the commnence ment of the next agricultural year stating therein the reasons for such termination and the description of the area in respect of which it is proposed to terminate the lease if the landholder requires the lands for cultivating the land personally
Section 96
If on re entering upon any land after termination of the lease of a protected lessee in accordance with this section a landholder fails at any time during such period as may be prescribed to utilise the land for the purpose for which the lease was terminated the dispossessed lessee may apply to the Revenue Officer to put him in possession of the land from the commencement of the agricultural year next following  and the Revenue Officer shall after hearing the landholder and making such enquiry as he deems fit put the lessee in possession of the land if he is satisfied of the failure and also award him such sum by way of compensation as the Revenue Officer may consider sufficient
 Section 19 1 provides for a landholder applying to the Revenue Officer to eject a protected lessee against whom an order for the termination of the lease had been passed under sections 8 or 9
Section 22 gives power to the State Government to make rules as stated therein
Under cl
3 of section 22 2 rules can be made regarding the period under sub section 6 of section 9 
Rules have been framed under section 22 and in particular r 9 prescribes such period as that of two years 
Hence it will be seen that section 96 read with r 9 requires the landholder who terminates the tenancy of his protected lessee on the ground that the land was required 83 by him for his personal cultivation to cultivate the land personally for a period of two years
Under the Berar Act after having entered upon the land if the landholder fails to cultivate the land personally during the above period then section 96 confers a right on the former protected lessee to apply to the Revenue Officer for being restored to possession
We have already indicated that the Bombay Act came into force on December 30 1958
The material provisions to be referred to in the said statute are sections 521 and 132
Section 521 runs as follows  Landlord to restore possession if be fails to cultivate within one year  Section 521  Where after terminating the tenancy of any land under section 9 of the Berar Regulation of
Agricultural Leases Act 1951 or under sections 38 39 or 39A of this Act the landlord has taken possession of such land and he fails to use the land for the pur pose specified in the notice given under the said section 9 or as the case may be within one year from the date on which he took possession or ceases to use it at any time for any of the aforesaid purposes within twelve years from the date on which he took such possession the landlord shall forthwith restore possession of the land to the tenant whose tenancy was terminated by him unless he has obtained from the tenant his refusal in writing to accept the tenancy on the same terms and conditions or has offered in writing to give possession of the land to the tenant on the same terms and conditions and the tenant has failed to accept the offer within three months of the receipt thereof  Provided that no refusal of the tenant shall be valid unless it has been verified before the Tahsildar in the prescribed manner
 Section 132 relates to repeals and savings
Sub section 1 states that the provisions of the enactments specified in Schedule I are repealed to the extent specified in column 4 of the said Schedule
It may be stated at this stage that one of the enactments so repealed was the Berar Act in its entirety
Sub section 3 is not relevant
Sub section 2 of section 132 on which reliance has been placed by both the parties is as follows  Repeals and Savings  Section 1322  Nothing in sub section 1 shall save as expressly provided in this Act affect or be deemed to affect 84 iany right title interest obligation or liability already acquired accrued or incurred before the commencement of this Act or iiany legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right title interest obligation or liability or anything done or suffered before the commencement of this Act and any such proceedings shall be instituted continued and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed
 We have already referred to the fact that the 5th respondent had issued the necessary notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant on December 28 1955 under section 91 and after initiating proceedings under section 8  1 g read with section 19 1 he obtained an order for possession as against the appellant from the Revenue Officer on lay 15 1956 and had also obtained possession of the lands on April 4 1957
All these proceedings were under the Berar Act before the coming into force of the Bombay Act
The 5th respondent continued in such possession of the lands till June 21 1961 on which date he transferred the suit lands to the first respondent in exchange for certain other lands
The appellant filed an application for restoration seeking relief on the ground that the 5th respondent had ceased to be in possession of the lands within twelve years from April 4 1957
Therefore the short question that arises for consideration is whether section 52 of the Bombay Act applies to those lands the possession of which was obtained by the landlord under section 9 of the Berar Act but in respect of which the period of two years  disability as imposed under section 96 read with rule 9 of the Rules was not over before the coming into operation of the Bombay Act
From the scheme of the Berar and Bombay Acts it will be noted that while section 52 of the Bombay Act enlarged the period of personal cultivation to 12 years the Berar Act had provided for personal cultivation only for a period of 2 years
Under the Berar Act if the landlord does not personally cultivate for 2 years the tenant can apply for restoration of possession from the landlord
Similarly under the Bombay Act if the landlord had ceased to cultivate the land within a period of 12 years from the date of taking possession the tenant can apply for restoration
We have already referred to the fact that Mr Gupta learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in Rainachanadra vs Tukaram and others1 in support of his 1  85 proposition that section 52 of the Bombay Act applies even to cases where possession has been taken after the coming into force of the Bombay Act in pursuance of an order for restoration obtained by the landlord under the Berar Act
We have gone through the above decision and we are of the opinion that it does not lay down any such proposition
The question that arose for consideration therein was a totally different one
In that case one X was a protected lessee under the Berar Act and the landlord had terminated the tenancy under section 91 on the round of personal cultivation and had also submitted an application to the Revenue Officer under section 8 1 g for an order terminating the tenancy
The Revenue Officer determined the tenancy by order dated July 2 1957 and made it effective from April 1 1958
But before the latter date Ordinance No 4 of 1957 was pro mulgated which in turn was replaced by the Bombay Act IX of 1958
The said Act had imposed a ban on eviction of tenants and had also stayed all such proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the said Act
The landlord had applied on May 15 1958 to the Naib Tahsildar for an order for restoration of possession of the land by the tenant
The Bombay Act
which repealed the Berar Act and the Bombay Act No IX of 1958 came into force on December 30 1958 on which date the application filed by the landlord for restoration was pending before the Naib Tahsildar
There was a controversy is to the nature of relief that could be granted to the landlord
Having due regard to section 1322ii and 3 of the Bombay Act this Court held that the application filed by the landlord for restoration of possession on the basis of the order obtained under section 8  1  g of the Berar Act and which was pending when the Bombay Act came into force must be treated as an application under section 19 of the Berar Act and had to be tried and disposed of by the appropriate authority
This Court further held that the application of the landlord being a pending proceeding in respect of a right acquired before the Bombay Act it had to be continued and disposed of as if the Bombay Act had not been passed
It was further held that in so disposing of the application treating it as one under section 19 of the Berar Act
there was no scope for the application of the conditions and restrictions prescribed by sub sections 3 and 4 of section 38 of the Bombay Act as those provisions do not apply to proceedings to enforce rights acquired when the Berar Act was in operation
This judg ment in our opinion does not support the landlord in the case before us
We have already referred to the fact that the High Court
in its order tinder appeal has held that section 52 of the Bombay Act does not apply to the present case as the landlord had cultivated the land for two years though a part of that period as after the 86 commencement of the Bombay Act
The High Court has also stated that section 52 of the said Act will have no application to the case on hand inasmuch as the landlord had obtained possession on April 4 1957 long before the coming into force of the Bombay Act
For this proposition the High Court has relied on an earlier decision of a Full Bench of the same Court in Saraswatibai Babji Tukaram Umarkar vs Bhikamchand Premsukhdas1
According to Dr Barlingay the High Court s view that even it  a landlord completes the period of two years personal cultivation as required under section 96 of the Berar Act after the coming into force of the Bombay Act the larger period provided under section 52 does not apply is not correct
We have already stated that Dr Barlingay has further urged that the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court does not apply and if that applies the said decision must be he Id to be erroneous
As the decision under appeal is substantially rested on the decision of the Full Bench it is necessary to examine the scope of the Full
Bench decision
But we may straight way say that the High Court s view that the Full Bench has held that section 52 will not apply to  cases where the two years  period is completed even after the Bombay Act came into force is not correct because the Full Bench has not laid down any such proposition
The Full Bench has only held that section 52 applies to cases where a landlord takes possession of the land on determination of a tenancy either under section 9 of the Berar Act or underss
38 39 or 39A of the Bombay Act after the latter Act has come into force
The facts in the Full Bench case were briefly a follows  X a landlord obtained possession on July 3 1955 of certain lands from his tenant under the Berar Act on the ground that he required the same for personal cultivation
After the death of X on October 281955 his heirs inherited the property and continued in possession of the same till February 9 1959 on which date they sold the lands to one section After purchase by section the original tenant applied under section 52 of the Bombay Act for restoration of possession on the ground that the landlord had ceased to use the property for a period of 12 years as required by the section
The heirs of X and the purchaser S were both made parties to the said application and relief was asked for against both of them
At this stage it may be mentioned that the Bombay Act came into force on December 30 1958
From the facts stated above it will be seen that the landlord had obtained possession from the tenant on July 3 1955 and lie and his heirs had completed the requirement of section 96 of the Berar Act namely two years personal cultivation Oil July 3 1957 long before the Bombay Act came into force
After 1 87 having completed the said two years period the heirs were in possession not only on the date of the coming into force of the Bombay Act but also till the date of sale to section February 9 1959
The question naturally arose whether section 52 of the Bombay Act will apply when the two years  period under the Berar Act had expired before December 12 1958
There appears to have been earlier single Judge s decisions of the Bombay High Court holding that section 52 of the Bombay Act will apply to cases where possession has been taken after the Bombay Act had come into force and also to cases where the period of 2 years  personal cultivation by the landlord had been completed even before the coming into force of the Bombay Act
Mr Justice Wagle before whom the matter came in the first instance expressed doubt about the correctness of the earlier decisions
Mr Justice Wagle was inclined to take the view that section 52 of the Bombay Act would apply only to those lands the possession of which was obtained by the landlord under section 9 of the Berar Act
but in respect of which the period of two years  disability as imposed under section 96 read with r 9 of the Rules was not over before the coming into force of the Bombay Act
As the learned Judge was inclined to take a view which was in conflict with the previous view of the Bombay High Court he referred the matter to a Division Bench which in turn referred the matter to the Full Bench
From what is stated above it will be seen that in that case possession of the lands was taken by the landlord from the tenant under the Berar Act and the two years  period as required under section 96 of the said Act had also expired before the coming into force the Bombay Act
The transfer in favour of section No doubt was made long after December 28 1958
In the case before us the landlord had obtained possession under the Berar Act on April 4 1957 and he bad not completed the two years  period under section 96 of the Berar Act on December 30 1958
We are only referring to these dates to show that the Full Bench decision did not have occasion to directly tackle the problem that arises for consideration before us
But nevertheless there are certain broad principles laid down in that decision the correctness of which will have to be considered by us
The Full Bench posed the following two questions for consideration  1
Whether the provisions of section 52 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area Act 1958 are attracted to cases where the lease of a protected lessee had been determined by the landholder under section 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act 1951 and possession thereof taken prior to the date the 88 new
Tenancy Act came into force and the landholder continued to personally cultivate the land on the date the new Act came into force
2If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative
whether the expiry of two years prior to the coming into force of the new Act would have any bearing on the application of section 52
 The first question it will be noted refers to the effect of taking possession by the landlord before December 30 1958 and his still being in possession on the date of the coming into force of the Bombay Act
The second question refers to the effect of the expiry of two years prior to the coming into force of the Bombay Act
So far as the first question is concerned the learned Judges held that section 52 of the Bombay Act would be attracted only to Such cases where a landlord takes possession after determination of tenancy either under section 9 of the Berar Act or under sections 38 39 force
So far as the second question is concerned the learned Judgeshave not expressed any opinion on the ground that it does not survive on the View expressed by them on the first question
It will be noted from a reading of the Full Bench judgment that the learned Judges have placed considerable emphasis for the applicability of section 52 of the Bombay Act about the landlord taking possession after the Bombay Act has come into force
If possession had been taken before December 30 1958 according to the Full Bench section 52 does not apply whereas if possession is taken after the said date the said section will apply
For coming to this conclusion the Full Bench has given considerable importance to the fact that section 52 refers also to sections 38 39 and 39A of the Bombay Act and that it uses the expression landlord has taken possession of such land and he fails to use the land These expressions according to the Full Bench can refer only to cases of lands taken possession by a landlord after the Bombay Act has come into force as section 52 is not retrospective
In our opinion the Full Bench has too broadly stated the principles regarding the circumstances under which section 52 of the Bombay Act will apply
If taking possession of the land by the landlord after December 30 1958 is the sole test for the applicability of section 52 the position in our view will be very anomalous
For instance if a landlord had taken possession on December 29
1958 section 52 will not apply and the requirement of two years  personal cultivation may not also become necessary as the Berar 89 Act stands repealed as on December 30 1958
Similarly if the landlord had taken possession and had also complied with the requirement of two years  personal cultivation long before December 30 1958 but nevertheless if he is in possession of the land on December 30 1958 according to the Full Bench section 52 will stand attracted
No doubt the Full Bench has not answered the second question posed before it but the reasoning of the decision will be to that effect if the test of possession on December 30 1958 is the only criteria
We are of the opinion that the question of section 52 being retrospective or not has no material bearing in interpreting that section
That section had necessarily to refer sections 38 39 and 39A as they were also provisions enabling a landlord to get possession from a lessee
It is in the light of these matters that the expressions occurring therein have to be given their natural meaning
The Full Bench has misinterpreted that section
In interpreting section 52 in our opinion section 132 2 i will be helpful
The obligation of the landlord when he takes possession of the land from the tenant under the Berar Act is to cultivate it personally for two years and once the landlord complies with that requirement before the Bombay Act came into force the tenant s right to get restoration stands extinguished as the landlord has discharged his obligation
Section 52 of the Bombay Act extends the period of personal cultivation to 12 years to all cases to which it applies
If the landlord had taken possession under the Berar Act there was an obligation on him to cultivate personally for two years and if he has not so cultivated the tenant had acquired a right to be restored to possession
That right which has been acquired by the tenant or accrued to him before the commencement of the Bombay Act is saved under section 1322 i
Similarly if the landlord had cultivated the lands personally for the required period before the Bombay Act came into force the landlord had acquired a right not to be disturbed from his possession thereafter
That right again which has been acquired by landlord or accrued to him has been saved under section 1322 i
Having due regard to the provisions of the statutes and what has been stated by us earlier the position is that if the landlord on December 30 1958 had completed the two years period of personal cultivation his right not to be disturbed is continued and preserved under section 1322 i of the Bombay Act
Again if the landlord in pursuance of an order obtained under the Berar Act takes possession after the commencement of the Bombay Act section 52 applies to him and his original obligation to cultivate personally for two years under the Berar Art gets L235 Sup
CI71 7 90 extended by the 12 years period provided under that section
If he ceases to so cultivate within the period of 12 years from his taking possession the tenant gets a right to apply for restoration of the land
The several aspects enumerated above have not been consi dered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court and it has rested its decision for applying section 52 by applying the sole test whether the landlord has taken possession before or after December 30 1958
Such a test is not warranted by the provisions of both the statutes read together
A fair reading of section 52 also in our opinion leads to the same conclusion
Section 52 provides for i the tenancy being terminated under section 9 of the Berar Act iithe landlord taking possession of such land on the basis of such termination of the tenancy iiithe landlord failing to use the land for the purpose specified in the notice under section 9 of the Berar Act ivfailure to use the land for the purpose mentioned in the notice within one year from the date on which he took possession v the landlord ceasing to use the land for the purpose for which he obtains possession within 12 years of his taking possession
To the case of a landlord who had already completed two years personal cultivation before December 30 1958 the requirement of his failing to use the land for the purpose specified in the notice under section 9 within one year from the date of his taking possession will have no application whatsoever
The normal and reasonable construction to be placed upon section 52 is that it will apply only to cases of lands the possession of which was obtained by the landlord under section 9 of the Berar Act but in respect of which the period of two years disability imposed under section 96 read with r 9 of the Rules was not over before the coming into force of the Bombay Act
In respect of such landlords section 52 enlarges the period for which he is required to personally cultivate the lands
In this respect we are inclined to agree with the view of Mr Justice Wagle
To conclude section 52 applies to all cases where possession is taken by the landlord on or after December 30 1958 on the basis of an order obtained under the Berar Act
It applies to 91 cases where possession had been taken by a landlord under the Berar Act but the two years period of personal cultivation had not been completed when the Bombay Act came into force
The instances of obtaining possession under sections 38 39 or 39A of the Bombay Act have not been considered by us in this appeal
It follows that section 52 of the Bombay Act applies to the case before us as the landlord had not completed two years  personal cultivation on December 30 1958 the date on which the Bombay Act came into force
He had taken possession on April 4 1957 and the two years  ptriod will expire only on April 4 1959
In the meanwhile the Bombay Act had come into force on December 30 1958
Under s52 the period of personal cultivation had been extended to 12 years from the date of taking possession
But as the 5th respondent who obtained possession for personal cultivation had transferred the suit lands to the 1st respondent on June 21 1961 on which date the 12 years period had not expired the appellant tenant was entitled to apply for restoration on the ground that the said landlord had ceased to cultivate the lands for the required period as provided under section 52
In the result the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the orders of the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal are restored and the appeal allowed
Though normally costs should follow the event in this case though the appellant succeeds we decline to award him costs as we are of the view that he should have been more careful in giving the valuation in the special leave petition
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Section 96 of the Berar Regulation of Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act 1951 read with rule 9 of the Rules made thereunder required a land holder who terminated the tenancy of his protected lease on the ground that the land was required by him for his personal cultivation to cultivate the land personally for a period of 2 years
It the land holder failed to do so then the section conferred a right on the former protected lessee to apply to the Revenue Officer for being restored to possession
On December 30 1958 the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area Act of 1958 came into force
Under section 132 of  the Bombay Act
the Berar Act was repealed but certain rights acquired or accrued before the commencement of the Bombay Act were saved
Under section 52 of the Bombay Act if the landlord had ceased to cultivate the land within a period of 12 years from the date of taking possession the tenant can apply for restoration that is the period of 2 years Linder the Berar Act was enlarged to 12 years
The appellant was a protected lessee within the meaning of the expression in the Berar Act in respect of certain lands
The landlord obtained possession of the lands on April 4 1957 on
the ground that he required the lands for personal cultivation
He continued in possession of the lands till June 21 1961 on which date he transferred the lands to the first respondent
The tenant thereupon filed in application under section 52 of the Bombay Act
The application was dismissed but the tenant s appeal was allowed
The appellate order was confirmed in revision by the  Revenue Tribunal
The first respondent filed a writ petition and the High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal
The certified copy of the judgment of the High Court by mistake showed the valuation of the lands it a very much higher value than the value given by the appellant in the writ petition
The appellant obtained special leave from this Court mentioning the enhanced valuation in his application for special leave
On the questions  1 Whether the special leave granted by this Court should be cancelled on the ground that the appellant made a false statement in regard to valuation and 2 whether section 52 of the Bombay Act applies HELD  1 In the particular circumstances of this case though the appellant should have been more careful it cannot be said that he was guilty of making any false or untrue statement on any material particulars deliberately to mislead the court
Further the statement regarding valua tion was lot of Much consequence in this case because the questions raised are points of law regarding the applicability of section 51 of the Bombay Act
81 D F Hari Narain vc
Badri Das  Sita Bai vs Sonu Vanji Wani  Ors
CANo 98265 dt 25 4 68 and section R Shetty vs Phirozeshah Nusserwanji Golabawalla  Anr
VA No 155163 clt
5 4 61 referred to
L235SLtp
CIP71 74 2 Section 52 of the Bombay Act applies to the facts of this case
91 B If a landlord in pursuance of an order obtained under the Berar Act takes possession after the commencement of the Bombay Act section 52 applies to him and his obligation to cultivate personally for two years under the Berar Act gets extended to 12 years period provide  under that section
90 A B If the landlord had taken possession of the land under the Berar Act before the commencement of the Bombay Act there was an obligation on him to cultivate personally for two years and if he had not so cultivated the tenant would have acquired a right to be restored to possession
That right so acquired by the tenant or accrued to him before the commencement of the Bombay Act is saved under section 1322 i of the Bombay Act
Similiarly if the landlord had cultivated the land personally for the required period before the Bombay Act came into farce the landlord would have acquired a right not to be disturbed from his possession thereafter
That right again which had been acquired by the landlord or accrued to him is saved Linder section 1322i
89 E H Therefore section 52 applies to cases in which possession was obtained by the landlord under section 9 of the Berar Act but in respect of which the period of two years disability imposed under section 96 read with r 9 of the rules was not over before the coining into force of the Bombay Act
90 F H The decision of this Court in Rain Chandra vs Tukaram  does not lay down that section 52 of the Bombay Act doe  not apply to case  where possession has been taken after the Bombay Act had come into force in pursuance of an order for restoration obtained by the landlord under the Berar Act
85 A B In the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Saraswatibai Babji Tukaram Umakar vs Bhikamchand Premsukhdas  the possession of the land was taken by the landlord from the tenant under the Berar Act and the two year  period as required under section 96 of that Act had also expired before the coming into force of the Bombay Act
The principle that applicability of section 52 of the Bombay Act depends solely upon the date on which the landlord takes possession that is whether before or after the Bombay Act came into force was to broadly stated in the decision
86 H 88 G H