DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV versus NIVRUTII GANGARAM PAWAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 09-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OINK.AR MARUTI JADHA V 
v. 
NIVRUTII GANGARAM PA WAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS. 
MAY 9, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H. KAPADIA,JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
C 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948; Ss. 33B and 88C-
Scope and ambit of-Held: Ss. 33-B and 88-C of 1948 Act operate in different 
fields-There are two separate stages-Tenant could oppose the application 
in terms of s. 33-B on two grounds that there is no bona fide requirement/ 
personal cultivation-However, bona fide requirement and personal 
cultivation concepts are applicable only under s. 88-C-Mere making an 
D application in terms of s. 33-B of the Act does not have the effect of terminating 
the relationship between the landlord and the tenant-No severance of 
relationship between them till Mamlatdar!authority passes a11 order to that 
effect-Even when the landlord applies for possession in terms of s. 33-B of 
the Act, it becomes conclusive so far as income and economic holding aspects 
E are concerned-But bona fide requirement and personal cultivation are to be 
decided by the Mamlatdar!Authority-There is a need for clarifying this 
aspect further-Hence, the matter is referred to larger Bench of the Supreme 
Court. 
The issues which arose for determination in this appeal are related to 
F the scope and ambit of Sections 33-B and 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 
Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Sections 33-B and 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and 
G Agricultural Lands Act operate in different fields. Bonafide requirement 
and personal cultivation concepts are applicable only under Section 88-C of 
the Act because it refers to Section 33-B. Section 33-B refers to bona fide 
requirement and personal cultivation. [Para 3] [322-E] 
H 
1.2. Section 33-B and Section 88-D (iv) of the Act also operate in 
320 
L 
DIN KAR MARUTIJADHA V "· NIVRUTII GANGARAM PAW AR(D) BY LRS 
3 2 J 
different fields. The former refers to landlord's right and the other refers to A 
tenant's right. (Para 4( (323-Df 
1.3. A tenant can, in a given case, oppose the application in terms of 
Section 33-B of the Act on the ground that there is no bonafide requirement 
and/or personal cultivation. It deals with enforcement of the certificate. With 
the death of the original landlord, the question of economic holding and the B 
income also becomes relevant. In Section 33-B income and/or economic 
holding concept is not there. It is only there in Section 88-C. 
/:. 
[Para 3( (322-F, Gf 
1.4. There is no dispute that once the tenancy is determined under C 
Section 33-B of the Act, the question of action in terms of Section 88-D(iv) 
does not arise but making of an order would be necessary. Mere making an 
application in terms of Section 33-B of the Act does not have the effect of 
terminating the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. Therefore, 
till the Mamlatdar passes an order there is no severance of status. 
D 
(Para 5) (323-E) 
Moreshwar Balakrishna Pa, dare and Ors. v. Vithal Vyenku Chavan and 
Ors., (2001 ( 5 SCC 551, not applicable. 
1.5. Even when the landlord applies for possession in terms of Section E 
33-B of the Act it may become conclusive so far as it relates to the income 
and economic holding concepts are concerned. But other requirements like 
bona fide requirement and personal cultivation are to be decided by the 
Mamlatdar. The certificate issued under Section 33-B is crystallized only in 
respect of the income and the economic holding concepts. Therefore, there 
is need for clarifying this aspect. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the F 
larger Bench. (Para 5) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2564 of2005. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2003 of the High Court G 
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1308of1990. 
A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant. 
M.S. Nargolkar, Varun Thakur, Sanjay Dubey and D.M. Nargolkar for the 
Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. The scope and ambit of Sections 33-B and 
. 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short the 
'Act') fall for determination in the present appeal. 
2. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the appellant placed 
strong reliance on the observations made by this Court in Moreshwar 
B Balkrishna Pandare and Ors. v. Vithal Vyenku Chavan and Ors., [2001] 5 
SCC 551 to the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.