BHAGWANT PUNDALIK & ANR. versus KISHAN GANPAT BHARASKAL & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 19-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• ' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
657 
BHAGWANT PUNDALIK & ANR. 
v. 
KISHAN GANPAT BHARASKAL & ORS. 
October 19, 1970 
[J. c. SHAH, K. s. llEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 
1958, s~. 20 and 36--Surrender of !and by tenant-Neither written nor 
verified before Tehsildar-Validity. 
·The respondents obtained a lease for cultivation of land. ''on the 
landlord's desire to cultivate the land pelrsonally, the respondents surren· 
dered the lands to the landlord. The surrender was not in writing nor 
was there verification of the surrender by the Tehsildar. 
The landlord 
cultivated the land for a few year-s, and thereafter granted a lease to the 
appellant 
The respondents applied under s. 36 of the Bombay Tenancy 
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, for restoration of 
possession to them. On the question whether the eviction of respondent 
was leaal, this Court, 
· 
· 
HELD : Possession obtained by. the landlord was not lawful, for, he 
obtained J>')SSession of the .lands from the tenants without complyina 'with 
tho requirement~ of s. 20 and sub-s. (2) of s. 36. Sub-section (2) of s. 36 
prohibits the landlord from obtaining poss11ssion of any land beld by a 
tenant except un\ler an order of Tahsildar. Delivery of posseslion volun-
tarily by the respondents did not render possession of the landlord valid. 
Under s._36(1) a tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub-s. 
(2) may apply' in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession, !659 El 
By s. 20 of the Act which deals with surrender it is expressly pro-
vided that surrender shall be in writing and shall be verified in the pres· 
oribed manner. 
Surrender of tenancy which does not comply with the 
requirements of s. 20 is ineffective. Again the terms of suli-s. (2) of 
s. 36 are explicit; they are not subject to any implication that possession 
obtained with the consent of the . tenant, but without an order of the 
Tahsi!dar is valid. L659 HJ 
· 
In the present case there is no surrender of tenancy in writing and no 
varification of surrender by the Tahsildar. 
• 
Madho SI o Talya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal & Ors. 
Special Civil Application No. 206/1967 dt, 11-12-1969, followed. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1409 
a00 1721 of 1966. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 15, 1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in 
Special Civi.l Application Nos. 746 and 747 of 1964. 
S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta. for the appellants (in both the 
appeals). 
M. S. Gupta, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.A. No. 1409 
of 1966. 
s, S. Khanduja, for respondent No. 3 (w both the appeals). 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] 2 S.C.R. 
The J udgm•nt of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J.-Badridas son of Ramgopal was the owner of fields 
Survey Nos. 2 and 9 /2 of village Bhamberi, taluq Akot, District 
Akola. On February 26, 1958, Badridas granted a lease for culti-
vation of the lands to two brothers Kishan and Manik. At the 
end of the agricultural year 1958-59 Badridas took possession of 
the. lands from Kishan and Manik representating that he desired 
to cultivate the lands personally. 
Badridas cultivated the lands 
during the agricultural years 1959-60 and 1960-61, and there-
after on January 18, 1961 he granted a lease of the lands for four 
years to Bhagwant son of Pundalik Kishan and Manik then appli-
ed on June 30, 1961 under s. 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, for an order 
restored them to possession alleging that their eviction from the 
lands was illegal . The Additional Tahsildar dismissed the applica-
tion, but in appeal the order was reversed. 
In the view of the 
appellate authority Kishan and Manik were in 1958-59 tenants of 
the lands and they were evicted otherwise than in accordance .with 
the. law, and that they were entitled to be restored to possession 
under s. 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands 
· (Vi<larbha Region) Act, 1958. In a petition by Bhagwant the 
Revenue Tribunal reversed the order of the appellate authority. 
The Tribunal held that since Kishan and Manik had given up pos-
session of the lands volutarily and had allowed Badridas to culti-
vate the lands for the following two years, they had no right to be 
reinstated into possession of the lands, especially after tb.e lands 
were let out by Badridas to Bhagwant. Kishan and Manik then 
moved in the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.