LexDAHYA LAL AND OTHERS versus RASUL MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
~~
~ ·
fli~
1f
._ ....
l'
l
r ,
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS
DAHYA LAL AND OTHERS
v.
RASUL MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIM
~(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR,
K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. WANoHoo,
and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Agriculturai Lanri--Tenant
inducted
by mortgagee-
Whether could be evicted, or deemed to be tenant under the
mottgagor-Tke Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,
1948 (Born. 6'1of1948), 88. 4 cl8. (a), (b), (c), 29-0onBtitution
of India, Art. 22'1.
In 1891 the ancestor~ of the appellant mortgaged the
land to U. who inducted one R. as a tenant on the land.
The appellant as owners of the equity of redemption applied
to the Court constituted under the Bombay Agricultural
Debtors Relief Act for adjustment of the debt due under the
mortgage and for redemption of the land mortgaged.
An
award was made on this application by compromise and in
execution of the award R was evicted.
R applied to the
Mahalkari under s. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agri-
cultural Lands Act, 1948 for an order restoring possession
of the land. The application was rejected and the order was
coufirmed by the Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal.
In a petition Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court
of Bombay it set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and
ordered that possession of the land be restored to the respon-
dent and declared that the respondent was entitled to
continue in occupation as a tenant on the same terms on
.which he was a tenant of the mortgagee.
Held, that the Act affords protection to all persons
who hold agricultural lands as contractual tenants, and
subject to the exceptions specified all persons lawfully cul ti-
vating lands belonging to others, and it would be undul9
resµ-icting the intention of the Legislature to limit the benefit
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act to
persons who derive their authority from the owner, either
under a contract of . tenancy, or otherwise.
All persons
other than those mentioned in els. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 4
of the Act who lawfully cultivate land belonging to other
l
1961
190~
I!Jahya Lal
v.
.
Ra.iul M oharmrtd
AblluZ Rahim
B'hahJ.
2
StJ;FREME COURT REPoRTS [i963]
persons whether their authority is derived directly Crom. the
owner of the land or not must be deemed to be tenants of
the land.
Crvn., APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil.Appeal
No. 516 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and ordP.r dated July .19, 1957, of the Bombay
High Court.in· Special · Civil Application No. sr,9 of
1957.
. W. S. Barlingay and Ganpat Rai for· the appe·
llanta.
0. B. Pai, J.B. DadMhanji, S. N.- Andley,
R.ameshwar _Nath and P. L. J'ohra, for the respon-
dents 1-5.
·
R. Gan.apathy Iyer and R.H. Dluihar, for the
respondent No. 6 llnd for the State of Maharashtra
(Intervener).
1962. May 3. T_he. Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SHAH,
J.-Survey No.
126 admeasuring
11 acres and 20 gunthas of Mouje Telod, Distriot
:Broach belonged to the ancestors of the appellants.
By deed dated July 24, -1891, the owners mortga-
ged .the land to .one Umiyashanker with poBSeasion.
tihortly after the mortgage, the mortagee inducted
one Mohammed Abdul Rahim as a tenant on the
land.
The appellants as owners of the equity of
redem·ption applied ·to the Court constituted under
the Bombay . Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 28
of 1947, for adjustment . of the debt due under the
deed dated July 24, 1891, a.nd for redemption. of
the land mortgaged. On ·February 19, 1954, an
award was made in this application by compromise
between the parties decla!ing that Rs. 3,000/· were
'(
•'
•
-
{
' t
3s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS
due to mortgagee under the deed dated July 24,
1891, that " the land in dispute was in the posses-
sion of Mohammed Abdul Rahim as tenant of the
mortgagee, and that the mortgagor had the right
to take possession of the land from the ·said
tenant." In execution of the award, Mohammed
Abdul Rahim-who will hereinafter be referred to
as the respondent-was evicted. On June 7, 19~4,
the respondent t pplied to the Mahalkari of Hansot
for an order under s. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy
& Agricultural Land Act, 1948, restoring possession
of the land. The Mahalkari rejected the applica-
tion and that order was confirmed in appeal by the
District Deputy collector, and by the Bombay
Revenue Tribunal in revision from the order of
the Deputy Collector. The High Court of judicature
at BomExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.