Holding

The appellant could not be deemed a tenant after the lease expired because no fresh lease was granted and the Act does not permit a tenancy to survive the termination of government management.

Summary

The suit land was taken under Government management and leased by the Mamlatdar to the appellant for ten years (7 Dec 1951 – 6 Dec 1961). After the lease expired, the management was terminated on 27 July 1963 and the land was restored to the landlord. The appellant claimed that his continued payment of rent to the Mamlatdar after the lease expiry made him a tenant until the termination of management. The Revenue Tribunal and the Bombay High Court held that no fresh lease was granted and, under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, a tenant could not continue after the lease expired or after management ended. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the Government is only a manager, not a landholder, and that Sections 4, 4B and related provisions do not apply; consequently the appellant could not be deemed a tenant and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether payment of rent to the Mamlatdar after the expiry of a lease creates a continuing tenancy.
Whether a lease granted by a Manager under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act continues after the termination of government management.
Whether Sections 4, 4B, 61, 65 and 88 of the Act apply to the appellant’s claim.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 4, s. 45, s. 47, s. 4B, s. 61, s. 65, s. 88

Subjects

leasegovernment managementtenancyBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ActMamlatdartermination of managementprivitydeemed tenantrent paymentland possession

Judgment

DHONDU UNDRU CHOUDHARY
A
v.
1 GANPAT LAL SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL.

JANUARY 18, 1991

[N.D. OJHA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] B

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections
.--'.
45, 47, 61, 65, 87 and 88-Mamlatdar appointed to manage suit land-
Lease of land for JO years-Payment of rent to Mamlatdar even after
expiry of lease period-Whether lease continues.

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 61, c
4, 4-B-Mamlatdar appointed to manage suit-land-Granting of lease
by him-Expiry of lease-Subsequent termination of management-
Sections 4, 4-B not applicable.
<'
The suit land was taken under Government management as it was D
lying fallow for two consecutive years. The Mamlatdar, appointed as a
Manager thereof under Section 45 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, after assuming management, leased out
the said land to the appellant for a period of 10 years by an agreement of
lease dated 7.12.1951. The period of lease expired on 6.12.1961. How-
-~~
ever, the management of the land was terminated by the Government E
by the Assistant Collector's order dated 27. 7.63 and possession thereof
was ordered to be restored to the respondent-landlord.

The appellant filed a Civil Suit against the respondent contending
that he was paying rent to the Mamlatdar during the period 7.12.1961
to 27. 7.1963 and thus continued to be a tenant in respect of the land •. F

l. The Civil Judge made a reference to the Mamlatdar, who held
that the appellant continued to be tenant.

The respondent's a_ppeal to the Assistant Collector having failed,
a revision application was moved before the Revenue Tribunal wherein G
the question arose whether the appellant's tenancy was subsisting on
27. 7 .1963, the date of termination of the management.
___/
The Tribunal held that the appellant could not continue as tenant
on the termination of the management, since the land was taken under
the Government management under Section 88(1) of the Act. H

81
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - (1991] 1 S.C.R.

The High Court in the Application under Article 227 of the Con- 1
A A
stitution of India having upheld this fmding of the Tribunal, the appel-
lant filed Special Leave Petition to this Court.

The appellant contended that having continued payment of rent to
the Mamlatdar even arter expiry of the lease till the termination of
• B management, be continued to be a tenant which the landlord could not
avoid on resumption of the land, while the respondent submitted that
the appellant could by no means continue to be a tenant after the expiry ~
of lease, and that no fresh lease was granted to him after the manage-
ment was terminated.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
c
HELD: 1. On the fmding of the courts below that after the expiry
of the lease, no fresh lease was granted by the Manager, the appellant's
claim to have continued as the tenant even after expiry of the lease on T
6.12.1961 and till 27.7.1963, the date of termination, by paying rent for
D the period to the Mamlatdar would be of no avail, in the absence of
fresh lease after expiry of the 10 years lease on 6.12.1961. This would be
so because the Act does ·not envisage the Government as a landholder
but only as Manager. While delivering back the land into the possession
of the landholder, it could not be burdened with any tenancy created or
resulting while under management. Besides, there could be no privity ~ >----
E between the landlord and the erstwhile tenant under Government in the
matter of tenancy. Between the appellant and the respondent landlord,
therefore, no question of the former continuing as tenant of the latter
could arise after the land was reverted to the landholder. [86B-D]

2. The appellant could not have been a deemed tenant either
F under Section 4 or 48 of the Act inasmuch as Section 88 of the . ____
Act grants exemption inter alia to lands held on lease from the - >
Government. [86E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 936
of 1977.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.1976 of the Bombay
High Court in S.C.A. No. 2741of1971. '>---
Shishir Sharma and P.H. Parekh for the Appellant.

H Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent.
D.U. CHOUDHARY v. GANPAT LAL [SAIKIA, J.] 83

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
K.N. SAIKIA, J. This appeal by Special Leave is from the
Judgment of the High Court of Bombay, dated 16th September, 1976,
in Special Civil Application No. 2741 of 1971 upholding the Judgment
of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
B
The suit land bearing Survey No. 182, owned by Shankarlal
Kunjilal, was taken under Government management as per order of
the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon bearing No. TEN. WS-946 dated
14.12.1950 as the land was lying fallow for two consecutive years. The
Mamlatdar, Raver was appointed as a Manager thereof under Section
45 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, herein-
after referred to as 'the Act.' After assuming the management the land c
was leased out to the appellant Dhondu Choudhary by the Mamlatdar
for a period of 10 yea.rs by an agreement of lease dated 7 .12.1951. The
period of lease accordingly expired on 6.12.1961. However, the
management of the land was terminated by the Government by the
Assistant Coll~ctor's order dated 27. 7 .1963, and the possession D
thereof was ordered to be restored to the respondent landlord. There
was nothing on the .record to show that the lease which expired on
6.12.1961 was extended by the Manager thereafter till the termination
of management by order dated 27.7.1963.

The appellant claimed that he ~as paying rent to the Mamlatdar E
during the period of 7.12.1961to27.7.1963 and thus continued to a be

- tenant in respect of the land. He filed a Civil Suit against the respon-
dent in the Court of Civil Judge, Raver, who made a reference to the
Mamlatdar, Raver who held that the appellant continued to be tenant.
The respondent's appeal to the Assistant Collector having failed, he
moved a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tri- F
;, bunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', wherein the question
arose whether the appellant's tenancy was subsisting on 27.7.1963, and
whether he had become the tenant in respect of the land since that date
under the Act.

Relying on . a bench decision of the Bombay High Court in G
Special c;ivil Application No. 1077 of 1961 Ghambhir Lal Laxman Das
-< v. Collector of Jalgaon, (decided on 20.12.1962) wherein it was held
that the person to whom lease was granted by the Manager of the land
which was taken under Government management, could not continue
to be the tenant after the expiry of the period of 10 years without a
fresh lease, and that after the management was terminated by the H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1991] 1 S.C.K

A Government on expiration of the lease, the tenancy under the lease ,..,"-.
could not be said to be subsisting on the date on which the manage-
ment was terminated. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not
continue as tenant since termination of the lease on 27.7.1963. The
Tribunal further held that since the land was taken under the Govern-
B ment management by the order of the Assistant Collector under
Section 88( 1) of the Act the provisions of Sections 1 to 87 were not
applicable and the appellant, therefore, could not continue to be
tenant after the expifation of the period of lease on 6.12.1961. The
High Court in the Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India having upheld the above finding of the Tribunal,
the appellant obtained Special Leave.
c
The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.
Shishir Sharma is that the appellant having continued payment of rent
to the Mamlatdar even after expiry of the lease till the termination of y
management, he continued to be a tenant which the landlord could
not avoid on resumption of the land. Dr. N.M. Ghatate, the learned
D
counsel for the respondent, submits that the appellant could by no
means continue to be a tenant after his lease expired and no fresh lease
was granted to him and more so after the management was terminated
on 27.7.1963.

We find force in Dr. Ghatate's submission. Admittedly the ~>--
E
management of the land was assumed by the State Government under
Section 65 of the Act. Section 65 deals with assumption of manage-
ment of lands which remained uncultivated, and says: -

"65. (1) If it appears to the State Government that for any
two consecutive years, any land has remained uncultivated ~- _
F
or the full and efficient use of the land has not been made
for the purpose of agriculture, through the default of the J
holder or any other cause whatsoever not beyond his con-
trol the State Government may, after making such inquiry
as it thinks fit, declare that the management of such land
shall be assumed. The declaration so made shall be con-
G
clusive.

(2) On the assumption of the management, such land '[-
shall vest in the State Government during the continuance
of the management and the provisions of Chapter IV shall
mutatis mutandis apply to the said land: .
.H
D.IJ. CI-j:OUDHARY v. GA~PAT LA)-. [SAIKIA, J.] 85

Provided that the rqanager may in suitable cases give
~uch land o~ lease at rent even equal to the amount of it~
assessllle11r:

Provided further that, if the managemept of the land
has been assumed up.der sub-section (1) on account of the
default of the tenant, such tenant shall cease to have any B
right or privilege under Chapter II or III, as the case may
be, in respect of such lap.d, with effect from the date on and
from which such management bas been assumed."

Admittedly, the Manager was appointed under Section 45 of the
i Act. Section 45 deals with vesting of estate in management, and says:
c
"45. (1} On the publication of the notification under
·section 44, the estate in respect of which the notification
has been published shall, so long as the management con-
1 . tinues, vest in the State Government. Such management
shall be deemed to commence from the date on which the D
notification is published and the State Government shall
appoint a Manager to be in charge of such estate.

(2) Notwithstanding the vesting of the estate in the
State Government under sub-section (1), the tenant hold-
ing the lands on lease comprised in the estate shall, save as E
otherwise provided in this Chapter, continue to have the
same right and shall be subject to the same obligations, as

- they have or are subject under the preceding Chapters in
respect of the lands held by them on lease."

Section 61 deals with termination of management, and says: F

"61. The State Government, when it is of opinion that it is
not necessary to continue the management of the estate, by
order published in the Official Gazette, direct that the said
management shall be terminated. On the termination of
the said management, the estate shall be delivered into the G
possession of the holder, or, if he is dead, of any person·
entitled to the said estate together with any balances which
may b~ due ~o the credit of the said holder. All acts done or
purporting to be done by the Manager during the coq-
tinuance of the management of the estate shall be binding
on the holder or to any person to whom the possessioq of H
the estate has been delivered."
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

Thus on termination of the ma,nagement the suit land in the
A
instant case was to be delivered into the possession of the respondent
holder and all acts done or purporting to be done by the Manager
during the continuance of the management of the estate should be
binding on the holder or on any person to whom the possession of the
estate had been delivered. In the instant case the finding of the Courts
B below is that after expiry of the lease no fresh lease was granted by the
Manager. In view of this finding, the appellant's claim to have con-
tinued as the tenant even after expiry of the lease on 6.12.1961 and till
27. 7 .1963, the date of termination, by paying rent for the period to the
Mamlatdar would be of no avail, in the absence of fresh lease after
expiry of the 10 years lease on 6.12.1961. The Tribunal followed the
binding decision of the-Bombay High Court holding that there was no
c lease in favour of the appellant and that by mere holding over he could
not have,continuea the status of a tenant. This would be so because the
Act does not envisage the Government as a landholder but only as
Manager. While delivering back the land into the possession of the ' r
landholder, it could not be burdened with any tenancy created or '
D resulting while under management. Besides, there c<))uld be no privity
between the landlord and the erstwhile tenant under Government in
the matter of tenancy. Between the appellant and the respondent land-
lord, therefore, no question of the former continuing as tenant of the
latter could arise after the land was reverted to the landholder.

E Mr. Sharma's submission that the appellant was a deemed tenant
is also not tenable. The appellant could not have been a deemed tenant
under Section 4 or 4B of the Act inasmuch as Section 88 of the Act grants
exemption inter alia to lands held on lease from the Government. It •.-
says:

F "88. (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), _ y· ~
nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply- _A(

(a) to lands belonging to, or held on lease from, the
Government;

G xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

( d) to an estate or land taken under management by >---
the State Government under Chapter IV or section 65
except as provided in the said Chapter IV or section 65, as
the case may be, and in sections 66, 80A, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86
H and 87:
D,l), CHOUDHARY v. GANPAT LAL [SAIKIA, J.] 87

Provided that from the date on. which the land is A
released from management, all the foregoing provisions of
this Act shall apply thereto; but subject to the modification
that in the case of a tenancy, not being a permanent
tenancy, which on that date subsists in the land

XXX XXX XXX XXX · XXX XXX XXX XXA xxx''

In Keshav Vithal Mhatre v. Arbind Ran.chhod Parekh, [1973]
Born. L.R. Vol. LXXV 694, a learned Single Judge has held that a
lease of land granted by a Manager under s. 47 of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, comes to an end with the termina- c
tion of the management of the land by virtue of s. 61 of the Act. If the
tenant continues to remain on the land thereafter, he would be
cultivating it u,nlawfully as a trespasser and he cannot, therefore, claim
tQ be a deeme<,:l tenant under s. 4 of the Act. This is consistent with the
decision. in Ghambhir Lal's case (supra) relied on by the Tribunal.
D
Thus, Sections 4 and 4B were not applicable during the period
from expiry of the lease to the termination of management.

. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and it .is dismissed,
but without any order as to costs.

VP.R. Appeal dismissed.