DHONDU UNDRU CHOUDHARY versus GANPAT LAL SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 18-01-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.D. OJHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DHONDU UNDRU CHOUDHARY 
A 
1 
v. 
GANPAT LAL SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL. 
JANUARY 18, 1991 
[N.D. OJHA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 
.--'. 45, 47, 61, 65, 87 and 88-Mamlatdar appointed to manage suit land-
Lease of land for JO years-Payment of rent to Mamlatdar even after 
expiry of lease period-Whether lease continues. 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 61, c 
4, 4-B-Mamlatdar appointed to manage suit-land-Granting of lease 
by him-Expiry of lease-Subsequent termination of management-
Sections 4, 4-B not applicable. 
<' 
The suit land was taken under Government management as it was 
D 
lying fallow for two consecutive years. The Mamlatdar, appointed as a 
Manager thereof under Section 45 of the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, after assuming management, leased out 
the said land to the appellant for a period of 10 years by an agreement of 
lease dated 7.12.1951. The period of lease expired on 6.12.1961. How-
-~~ ever, the management of the land was terminated by the Government 
E 
by the Assistant Collector's order dated 27. 7 .63 and possession thereof 
was ordered to be restored to the respondent-landlord. 
The appellant filed a Civil Suit against the respondent contending 
that he was paying rent to the Mamlatdar during the period 7.12.1961 
to 27. 7 .1963 and thus continued to be a tenant in respect of the land •. 
F 
l. 
The Civil Judge made a reference to the Mamlatdar, who held 
that the appellant continued to be tenant. 
The respondent's a_ppeal to the Assistant Collector having failed, 
a revision application was moved before the Revenue Tribunal wherein 
G 
the question arose whether the appellant's tenancy was subsisting on 
27. 7 .1963, the date of termination of the management. 
___/ 
The Tribunal held that the appellant could not continue as tenant 
on the termination of the management, since the land was taken under 
the Government management under Section 88(1) of the Act. 
H 
81 
• 
A 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
- (1991] 1 S.C.R. 
The High Court in the Application under Article 227 of the Con-
1 
A 
stitution of India having upheld this fmding of the Tribunal, the appel-
lant filed Special Leave Petition to this Court. 
The appellant contended that having continued payment of rent to 
the Mamlatdar even arter expiry of the lease till the termination of 
B 
management, be continued to be a tenant which the landlord could not 
avoid on resumption of the land, while the respondent submitted that 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the appellant could by no means continue to be a tenant after the expiry 
~
of lease, and that no fresh lease was granted to him after the manage-
ment was terminated. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. On the fmding of the courts below that after the expiry 
of the lease, no fresh lease was granted by the Manager, the appellant's 
claim to have continued as the tenant even after expiry of the lease on T 
6.12.1961 and till 27.7.1963, the date of termination, by paying rent for 
the period to the Mamlatdar would be of no avail, in the absence of 
fresh lease after expiry of the 10 years lease on 6.12.1961. This would be 
so because the Act does ·not envisage the Government as a landholder 
but only as Manager. While delivering back the land into the possession 
of the landholder, it could not be burdened with any tenancy created or 
resulting while under management. Besides, there could be no privity ~ >----
between the landlord and the erstwhile tenant under Government in the 
matter of tenancy. Between the appellant and the respondent landlord, 
therefore, no question of the former continuing as tenant of the latter 
could arise after the land was reverted to the landholder. [86B-D] 
2. The appellant could not have been a deemed tenant either 
under Section 4 or 48 of the Act inasmuch as Section 88 of the 
.. ____ 
Act grants exemption inter alia to lands held on lease from the -> 
Government. [86E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 936 
of 1977. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.1976 of the Bombay 
High Court in S.C.A. No. 2741of1971. 
'>---
Shishir Sharma and P.H. Parekh for the Appellant. 
H 
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent. 
-
D.U. CHOUDHARY v. GANPAT LAL [SAIKIA, J.] 
83 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.N. SAIKIA, J. This appeal by Special Leave is from the 
Judgment of the High Court of Bombay, dated 16th September, 1976, 
in Special Civ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.