DAMODAR GANPAT WANI,& ANR versus RAJARAM DHONDU WAGH & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 28-07-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1068. 
[S. 
----- ~- ·~---
DAMODAR GANPAT WANI,& ANR. 
v~\\. 
RAJARAM DHONDU WAGH & ORS. 
July ,28, 1978 .. 
MlraTAZA·F~L Au,_JAsWANT ·SINGH ,\Ni)R.' S. PATHAK, JJ,] 
• 
4 
. 
• 
Borizbay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948~ Sections 32. 34, 34(2A), 
37(1) and SS(lA)-Scope of. 
· 
· 
' 
-
-, 
-
-
Pursuaiit tO ProceediiigS~UD.der s. -34 of the BOmbaY Ten.in.Cy and AgriCultural 
Lands, Act..'.1948,· the first appellant, the landlord, obtained 'possession of agri· 
cultural land from the tenant on June 14, 1960.. On April 2; 1964 he executed 
a registered sale deed transferring the land to the second appellanL On January 
2, 196S the first respondent, Rajaram Dhondu Wagh; a son of the· original 
· tenant, -applied to the Extra ·Awai Karkun of Jamner under s. 
37 of the 
Tenancy:Act against the appellants for.possession.of the land on the ground 
that the first appellant had sold· the land . to· the ' second appellant before the 
cxpirY of .12 years from the date be had been put into possession. The applica.· 
tion was allowed. On appeal by the appellants the Collector set aside the order 
of tho Extra Awai Karlrun and held that having regard to s. 88(1A) of tho 
Tenancy Act Rajaram Dhondu Wagh could not be described as a tenant entitled 
to hold the land under s. 34 of the Tenancy Act. ~-On revision_ application by 
the respondents the ~Iaharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the 
Collector and awarded possession of the land to the respandents, holding that 
the respondents were tenants. -The appellants sought relief under Art. 227 of 
the Constitution before the Bombay High Co~ bot the petition was,sum-
marily rejected Qy an order dated June 17, 1968. - That or<ler was challenged in 
appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD ; J. Section 34 of the 
Bombay Tenancy Act confers rights and 
privileges on the landlord as well as the tenant and if a tenant fell within the 
misc:hief of Section 88(1A); the.landlor~ on making.out a case under Section 
34(1) was exempt from the restrictions on his rights imposed by sub-section 
(2) and (2A) o{ Section 34 because. the rights or privileges conferred on th• 
tenant by those sub-sections were no longer -available to him by reason of 
Scction'88(1A). [1071 F-GJ 
· 
· 
F. 
Section 340) of the Tenancy Act entitles the landlord to terminate tho 
tenancy of the protected tenant by giving him one year's notice in •writing, if the 
landlord bona fide 
requires the land for 
~ltivating 
personally •. Section 
34(2-A) qualifies the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy by certain condi-
tiont,. and one of the them is that if the land held by the landlord is more than 
· tho agricultnral holding in area, tho right of the landlord t<> terminate the 
,.
tenancy of the piotected tenant must t: limited to ·an area which 1houtd, after 
inch termination. leave with the tenant half the area of the land leased. . That 
condition confers a right ·or privilege on the tenant to retain half the area of 
G 
the land 1,ased notwithstanding that a case 11as· been made out -by the landIOrd 
under seellon 34(1) for termination of the tenancy. Section 88(1A) provides 
that a protected tenant, whose name .stands entered .as an owner in the record -
of rights o'n the-first day of January 1952 in respect of ;:t.nY land lifty acres or 
more of jirayat or twelve and half acres or more of irrigated land in area in 
'"'--"
addition to the land held by him on lease as a protected tenan4 shall not be 
r 
entitled to any rights or privileges conferred on a protected tenant by the pro-
visions of section 32 or 34. What section 88(1A) does is to deprive the protected 
tenant of the rights and privileges -conferred on him by section 32 or 34. It 
H 
docs nothing more. Consequently. the Hght or 
privilege 
which the tenant 
enjoyed under section 34(2-A), that is to say, the retention of possession of halr 
the area of the land leased was los4 and in the result the landlord became 
entitled to possession of the entire land leased. (1071 C-F] 
' 
" 
• 
GANPATWANI v. DHONDUWAGH (Pathak, ].) 
1069 
---·- -~~~ -
··--- -
The Jardlcrd oi.,:ai:io: tis right to terminate the tenancy of a protected tenant 
·under Se·· · , 34(!) ot 
~--:: Act and that is what happened in this case. The 
first app~u.w.t \.>-';.;.s ab;c: to terminate the tenancy because of Section 34(1). 
. 
. 
. 
' 
' . . 
[1071 HJ 
langa Baoji },,fali v. Nasarat Jahan-·Begum and Ors. I.L.R. 1958 Bomb~y 
57

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.