DHAN SINGH RAMKRISHNA CHAUDHRI & ORS. versus LAXMINARAYAN RAMKISHAN & ANR.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 16-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

:94 
DHAN SINGH RAMI<RISHNA CHAUDHRI & ORS. 
v. 
LAXMINARA YAN RAMKISHAN & ANR. 
April 16, 1974 
[M. H. BEG AND R, S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Boniba_v Tenancy and AKricult11r<il Lands Act, 1948, S. 25(2)-Part pay111enr 
.of rent for each yci1r for 3 years-If failure to pay rent for 3 years within the 
n1eaning Qf secuon. 
A 
B 
If rent is agreed upon between the landlord and tenant, under s. 7 of the 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the rent payable by the 
tenant would be such rent subject to the maximum rate fixed by 
the 
State 
Government under s. 6 of the Act. 
Under s. 25 (2) of the Act as 
it stood 
C 
before 1956, if the tenant had failed for three years to pay rent within the period 
specified in s. 14, the concerned officer would have no discretion to grant time 
!o the tenant to pay the arrears and thus afford relief against forfeiture. 
ln the present case, the rent agreed upon bet\veen the parties was Rs. 850/-. 
For 1952-53, the tenant paid Rs. 850/- but in view of the Government noti-
fication dated September 1, 1952, issued under s. 6, the maximum rent chargeable 
in respect of the land could not exceed Rs. 685/5/-. For 1953-54, he paid only 
_Rs. 350 but credit was given to him by the authorities for Rs.. 
164/11/-
by 
.adjusting that amount out of Rs. 850, which he had paid for 1952-53, when he 
had to pay only Rs. 685/5/-. He paid nothing in the year 1954-5) and made a 
part payment of Rs. 531/1/- t9wards the rent for the year 1955-56 after the 
expiry of the period under s. 14. 
The balance of arrears for the 3 years was 
Rs. 1010/3/-. The Tribunal, under the Act, directed the 
appellant-tenant to 
-deliver possession of the land to the respondent-landlord. 
A writ petition chal-
lenging the order was dismissed by the High Cuurt. 
Jn appeal to this Court, it was contended that the observations in Raja Rain's 
case [1962] Supp. I SCR 739 and in Vitha/'s case [1968] l S.C.R. 541. showed 
that in order thats. 25(2) may be attracted, the total amount of arrears of rent 
_must exceed the aggragate rent_ of two years. 
Disn1issing the appeal. 
D 
E 
HELD : The appellant defaulted in payn1ent of rent for the 3 years 1953·54, 
1954-55 and 1955-56, within the meaning of the section, and hence 
\Vas 
not 
'.entitled to relief from forfeiture. 
F 
The language of s. 25(2) is unambiguous, clear and unequivocal. 
There is 
no scope even with the aid of any rule of beneficent interpretation for construing 
the sub-section in a manner contrary to its plain ordinary meaning. 
The failure 
or defaults in payment for any three years, envisaged by the sub·section, may be 
either with regard to the amount of rent or the period specified for payment or 
both. Failure and default are synonymo1n terms. 
Failure mean::. 
a 
fa] ling 
short, and default n1eans 01nission of that which a man ought to do. 
Therefore. 
a partial default or failure to p3y the whole of !he rent due for the year will also 
be a failure '"'ithin the meaning of the sub-section, more so, if the part payment 
·had been made beyond the specified period. Any other construction would lea1 
to strange results, and even a persistently defaulting tenant would b~ able 
to 
stave off eviction by paying only a part of the rent due every year so that the 
unpaid arrears remain. in the n'._'gregate, less than the total rent of two years. 
[100 B-E; 102 G-103 A] 
G 
Raia Ran1 Mnliadf'v Paranjype and (lrf. v. Aha Maruti Mali & ors., li962] 
H 
Supp. l, S.C.R. 7)9, fo'lowed. 
Vithal Vasudeo Kulkarni & ors. v. Maruti Rama Nagane & Ors., [1968] 
1, 
:S.C.R. 541, explained. 
• 
A 
• 
• 
B 
t 
c 
D 
,. 
E 
F 
G 
•• 
H 
DHAN SINGH v. LAXMINARAYAN (Sarkaria, !.) 
95 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil 
Appeal 
No. 
697 
of 
1971. 
From the judgment and order dated 
10th August, 1970 of the 
Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1430 of 1967. 
M. C. Bhandare, P. H. Parekh, and Mrs. Sunanda Bhandare for 
the appellant. 
B. D. Bal and S. V. Parekh, and S. V. Tambvekar for the respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA J. 
This apeal is directed against the judgment and 
order, dated 10th August, 1970, of the High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay. 
Appellants are heirs of one Ramkrishna Khandu Chaudhari who 
was a protected tenant of the suit lands belonging to 
Respondent 
No. 1. The landlord made an application against the tenant in the 
Court of Extra A val Karkum for possession of the suit lands under 
s. 29 read with ss. 14 and 25(2) of the

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