Supreme Court of India

DINKAR MARUTI JADHAVversusNIVRUTII GANGARAM PAWAR (DEAD)

Citation: 2008 INSC 65
Decided: 18 January 2008
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Holding

Sections 33‑B and 88‑C operate in distinct fields; the death of the landlord makes the heirs' income and holdings relevant, and the relief under s.88‑C is not exhausted merely by initiating s.33‑B proceedings.

Summary

The appellant, Dinkar Maruti Jadhav, sought termination of a tenancy under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, relying on a certificate issued to the deceased landlord under s.88‑C and proceedings initiated under s.33‑B for bonafide requirement and personal cultivation. The landlord died while the s.33‑B action was pending, raising the question of whether the certificate’s relief was exhausted and whether the heirs' income and land holdings should be considered. The Supreme Court clarified that s.33‑B and s.88‑C operate in separate fields; s.33‑B does not involve income or economic holding considerations, whereas s.88‑C does. Consequently, on the landlord’s death, the heirs’ income and holdings become relevant for the tenancy termination. The Court also refined the earlier Moreshwar decision, holding that the issuance of a certificate under s.88‑C is not automatically exhausted by initiating s.33‑B proceedings. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, and the appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the death of the original landlord extinguishes the relief granted under s.88‑C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 when proceedings under s.33‑B are pending.
Whether the income and extent of land of the legal heirs must be taken into account for termination of tenancy after the landlord’s death.
Interpretation of the precedent set in Moreshwar Balkrishna Pandare v. Vithal Vyanku Chavan regarding exhaustion of s.88‑C relief upon initiation of s.33‑B action.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 33-B, s. 88-C, s. 88-D(iv)

Subjects

Bombay Tenancy Actagricultural tenancycertificate exemptionbonafide requirementpersonal cultivationdeath of landlordlegal heirsincomeeconomic holdingSection 33-BSection 88-Ctenancy termination

Judgment

                         [2008) 1 S.C.R. 864


A                    DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV                             t--
                                  v.
             NIVRUTII GANGARAM PAWAR (DEAD)
                     BY LRS. AND ORS.
                   (C.A. No. 2564 of 2005)
B                       JANUARY 18, 2008
      [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND
             LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

c       Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948- ss.
  33-8 and 88-C - Certificate granting exemption from
  applicability of provisions of the Act - On the basis of income
  of landlord and extent of land leased - Initiation of proceedings
  by the certified lan.dlord for termination of tenancy on the
  ground of bonafide requirement and personal cultivation -
D
  Death of the landlord during pendency of the proceedings -
  Effect of - On termination of tenancy- Held: With the death of
  the original landlord, apart from tile question of bonafide need
  and personal cultivation, question of extent of holding leased
  and the income of the legal heirs also becomes relevant -
E Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy

       A certificate was issued to the original owner under
  s. 88-C of Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
  1948. He initiated proceedings uls 33 B. Thereafter he died.
  In the litigation question for consideration was effect of          k
F
  death of the original owner on the certificate issued u/s                  ~




  88 C. When the matter came in appeal to this court,
  Division Bench doubted correctness of some of the
  observations made in *Moreshwar's case wherein it was
  held that once certificate u/s 88 C was issued and
G proceedings uls 33 B were initiated, the relief u/s 88 C gets
  exhausted and hence referred the matter to larger Bench.
                                                                          , ..,
  Thus, the question to be clarified was that when death of
  the original owner has taken place whether the income
  or the extent of land of the legal heirs have to be reckoned.
H                               864
             DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV v. NIVRUTII GANGARAM               865
             PAWAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

      ~i        Partly allowing the appeal, the Court                       A
                 HELD: Sections 33-8 and 88-C of Bombay Tenancy
           and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 operate in different fields.
           Section 33-8 refers to bona fide requirement and personal
           cultivation. Income and/or economic holding concept is
           not there. Bona fide requirement and personal cultivation        B
           concepts are applicable only under Section 88-C because
           it refers to Section 33-8. There are two separate stages.
           The tenant can, in a given case, oppose the application in
           terms of Section 33-8 on the ground that there is no bona
           fide requirement and/or personal cultivation. It deals with      c
           enforcement of the certificate. With the death of the original
           landlord, the question of economic holding and the
           income also becomes relevant. [Para 3] [866-0, E, F]
               Moreshwar Balkrishna Pandare and Ors. v. Vitha/ Vyanku
           Chavan and Ors. 2001 (5) SCC 551 - clarified.                    D

•      ~        CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2564
           of 2005.
                From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2003 of
           the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition.No. 1308 E
           of 1990.
                Varun Thakur and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.
                D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                  F
...    ~

                  DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. A two judge Bench doubted
           the correctness of some of the observations made in Moreshwar
           Balkrishna Pandare & Ors. v. Vithal Vyanku Chavan and Ors.
           [2001 (5) sec 551] and therefore referred the matter to a larger
           Bench and that is how the matter was posted before us. The G
           essence of the judgment in Moreshwar's case (supra) was that
... 1      once an action in Section 33-B is taken, Section 88C of the
           Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short the
           'Act') has no relevance.
                2. In the instant case, the original owner had expired.     H
   866        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A Undoubtedly, the certificate had been issued to him under               +"'-
  Section 88-C with reference to the qualification possessed by
  the landlord as on 151 April, 1957. The question which fell for
  consideration before the High Court was the effect of the death
  of the original landlord who had either applied for issuance of
B certificate under Section 88-C, which is pending, or was the
  certificate already granted in his favour. In Paragraph 27 of
  Moreshwar's case (supra) it is held that once certificate under
  Section 88-C is issued and the landlord has issued notice in
  exercise of the rights under Section 33-B of the Act and proceeds
c towithfileSection
             an application for possession under Section 33-B read
                    29 of the Act, the relief under Section 88-C gets
  exhausted. Moreshwar's case (supra) related to rights under
  Section 880 of the Act. The question which may arise is that
  when death has taken place whether the income or the extent of
  land of the legal heirs have to be reckoned.
D
            3. Sections 33-B and 88-C operate in different fields. Bona
  fide requirement and personal cultivation concepts are
  applicable only under Section 88-C because it refers to Section
  33-B. Section 33-B refers to bona fide requirement and personal
  cultivation. Section 88D(iv) comes into operation when the
E annual income exceeds the limit fixed and/or economic holdings
  exceeded. There are two separate stages. The tenant can, in a
  given case, oppose the application in terms of Section 33-B on
  the ground that there is no bona fide requirement and/or
  personal cultivation. It deals with enforcement of the certificate.
F With the death of the original landlord, the question of economic       ...    ,,.
  holding and the income also becomes relevant. In Section 33-
  B income and/or economic holding concept is not there.
         4. The decision in Moreshwar's case (supra) is accordingly
  clarified. We remit the matter to the High Court to hear the writ
G petitions afresh in the light of the position of law delineated
  above.                                                                   r     ....
         5. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without
    any order as to costs.
H K.K.T.                                      Appeal partly allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Bombay Tenancy Act"Sign in to search