Supreme Court of India

HARI SAKHARAM DHANAVATE (DEAD) BY LRS.versusA.N. PATIL TUKARANE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: 1995 INSC 734
Decided: 14 November 1995
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: M M PUNCHHIS C SEN

Holding

The case is covered by Section 25(2) and the Mamlatdar cannot proceed under Section 25(1); eviction is proper.

Summary

The appellant, a tenant, challenged a High Court order that upheld the landlord’s right to eject him under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The dispute centered on whether the tenant’s arrears of rent exceeded three years, which would invoke Section 25(2) of the Act, or whether relief under Section 25(1) could be granted by the Mamlatdar to save the tenancy. The Court explained that Section 25(1) allows a Mamlatdar to order the tenant to pay arrears within 15 days to avoid eviction, whereas Section 25(2) applies when arrears extend for three years, requiring the landlord to give a three‑month notice and mandating eviction, precluding the relief of Section 25(1). The High Court had found that the case fell within Section 25(2) and that the Mamlatdar could not invoke Section 25(1). The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, holding that the appellant was indeed in arrears beyond three years and that eviction under Section 25(2) was proper. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the tenancy fell under Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 due to arrears of rent beyond three years
Whether the Mamlatdar could exercise powers under Section 25(1) to grant relief and save the tenancy

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 25(1), s. 25(2)

Subjects

tenancyarrears of rentevictionBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ActSection 25landlord-tenantMamlatdar

Judgment

A             HARi SAKHARAM DHANAVATE (DEAD) BY LRS.
                                v.
             AN. PATILTUKARANE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

                              NOVEMBER 14, 1995

B                     [M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]

            Land Laws:

            Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 :
c          Ss.25( 1). 25(2~Agricultural tenancy-Ejectment of tenant-Tenant in
    alTears of rent beyond three years-Held, ejectment must follow on landlord's
    giving an intimation to the tenant.

         The appellant-tenant filed the present appeal challenging the judg-
D   ment of the High Court deciding against him the issue of arrears of rent
    and ejectment under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
    1948.

            Dismissing the appeal, this Court

E          HELD : 1.1. The High Court was right in holding that the case was
    covered under S.25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
    1948 and the Mamlatdar could not proceed under S.25(1) of the Act permit-
    ting the tenant to save the tenancy on payment of arrears of rent. (233-E-F]

          1.2. The distinction between the provisions of S.25(1) and 25(2) of
F   the Act is that the former enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against
    termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent by facilitating payment of
    rent on call to the tenant to pay it directly to the landlord or in Court
    within 15 days of the order;· whereas the latter is an exception providing
    that if the tenant is in arrears of rent for any three years, the landlord has
G   to give an intimation to that effect to the tenant within 3 months of each
    default and then ejectment must follow as a consequence. (233-C-E]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1125 of
    1979.

H           From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.75 of the Bombay High
                                         232
              H.S. DHANAVATE v. AN.PATIL TUKARANE                       233

Court in Spl. Civil Application No. 1383 of 1971.                              A
      V. Krishnamurthy and Rakesh K. Sharma for K.R. Chowdhary, (NP)
for the Appellants.

       Ms. J.S. Wad for the Respondents.
                                                                               B
       The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      The narrow point before the High Court as also before the Revenue
Authorities was whether the appellant-tenant was in arrears of rent beyond
3 years and could actioi;i. be taken under Sec. 25(1) or 25(2) of the Bombay
Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?                                        C
       The distinction between the two provisions is apparent. Sec. 25(1)
enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against termination of tenancy for
non-payment of rent by facilitating payment of rent on call to the tenant
to pay it directly to the landlord or in Court with costs of the proceedings
within 15 days from the date of the order, and on failure of which to suffer   D
an ejectment. In contrast, Sec. 25(2) carves out an exception that if the
tenant is in arrears on his failure to pay rent for any three years, the
landlord has to give an intimation to that effect to the tenant within a
period of 3 months of each default, and then ejectment must follow as a
consequence and the remedial provisions under Sec. 25(1) cannot come to        E
the rescue of the tenant. The finding recorded by the High Court is that
the instant was a case covered under Sec. 25(2) and that the Mamlatdar
could not proceed under Sec. 25(1) permitting the tenant to save the
tenancy on payment of arrears of rent within 15 days of the order. The
High Court has given adequate reasons to come to that view. We see no
justification to alter the same.                                               F

     The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.

R.P.                                                      Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

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

Try "tenancy"Sign in to search