Bona fide pursuit of the wrong remedy may extend limitation when the correct tenancy remedy is promptly filed.

Time spent in bona fide proceedings under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was excluded when the tenant promptly pursued the correct remedy under Section 29(1), so the later application was treated as within limitation. The Court also accepted that the earlier proceedings were prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, bringing the matter within Section 14 of the Limitation Act. On that basis, the challenge on limitation failed and the order restoring possession to the tenant was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenant's application under Section 29(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was within limitation after excluding time spent in prosecuting proceedings under Section 84 of the Act. (ii) Whether the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the earlier proceedings were prosecuted bona fide and with due diligence.

Issue (i): Whether the tenant's application under Section 29(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was within limitation after excluding time spent in prosecuting proceedings under Section 84 of the Act.

Analysis: The tenant first pursued a remedy under Section 84, which was rejected on the ground that the proper remedy was an application under Section 29. Immediately after that rejection, the tenant moved under Section 29(1). The authorities below had treated the later application as time-barred, but the High Court examined the sequence of proceedings and the reason why the earlier remedy had been adopted.

Conclusion: The tenant's application was held to be within time after applying the benefit of exclusion of time.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the earlier proceedings were prosecuted bona fide and with due diligence.

Analysis: The decisive question was whether the tenant had bona fide prosecuted the earlier Section 84 proceedings. The record showed a continuous attempt by the tenant to recover possession and that the earlier proceeding failed because the forum held Section 29 to be the proper remedy. The Court declined to entertain a new plea against applicability of the Limitation Act and upheld the finding that the earlier proceedings had been prosecuted in good faith.

Conclusion: The tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the delay was rightly condoned.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order restoring possession to the tenant was sustained, and the challenge to the finding on limitation failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a litigant prosecutes a remedy in good faith before a forum later found to be inappropriate, the time spent in such bona fide proceedings may be excluded for limitation purposes when the correct remedy is promptly pursued.

---