DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV versus NIVRUTII GANGARAM PAWAR (DEAD)

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 18-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 1 S.C.R. 864 
A 
DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV 
t--
v. 
NIVRUTII GANGARAM PAWAR (DEAD) 
BY LRS. AND ORS. 
(C.A. No. 2564 of 2005) 
B 
JANUARY 18, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
c 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948- ss. 
33-8 and 88-C -
Certificate granting exemption from 
applicability of provisions of the Act - On the basis of income 
of landlord and extent of land leased - Initiation of proceedings 
by the certified lan.dlord for termination of tenancy on the 
D ground of bonafide requirement and personal cultivation -
Death of the landlord during pendency of the proceedings -
Effect of - On termination of tenancy- Held: With the death of 
the original landlord, apart from tile question of bonafide need 
and personal cultivation, question of extent of holding leased 
E 
and the income of the legal heirs also becomes relevant -
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy 
A certificate was issued to the original owner under 
s. 88-C of Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 
1948. He initiated proceedings uls 33 B. Thereafter he died. 
F In the litigation question for consideration was effect of 
k 
death of the original owner on the certificate issued u/s 
~ 
88 C. When the matter came in appeal to this court, 
Division Bench doubted correctness of some of the 
observations made in *Moreshwar's case wherein it was 
held that once certificate u/s 88 C was issued and 
G proceedings uls 33 B were initiated, the relief u/s 88 C gets 
exhausted and hence referred the matter to larger Bench. 
, .., 
Thus, the question to be clarified was that when death of 
the original owner has taken place whether the income 
or the extent of land of the legal heirs have to be reckoned. 
H 
864 
DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV v. NIVRUTII GANGARAM 
865 
PAWAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 
~i 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: Sections 33-8 and 88-C of Bombay Tenancy 
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 operate in different fields. 
Section 33-8 refers to bona fide requirement and personal 
cultivation. Income and/or economic holding concept is 
B 
not there. Bona fide requirement and personal cultivation 
concepts are applicable only under Section 88-C because 
it refers to Section 33-8. There are two separate stages. 
The tenant can, in a given case, oppose the application in 
terms of Section 33-8 on the ground that there is no bona 
fide requirement and/or personal cultivation. It deals with c 
enforcement of the certificate. With the death of the original 
landlord, the question of economic holding and the 
income also becomes relevant. [Para 3] [866-0, E, F] 
Moreshwar Balkrishna Pandare and Ors. v. Vitha/ Vyanku 
Chavan and Ors. 2001 (5) SCC 551 - clarified. 
D 
• 
~ 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2564 
of 2005. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2003 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition.No. 1308 E 
of 1990. 
Varun Thakur and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant. 
D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents. 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
... 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. A two judge Bench doubted 
the correctness of some of the observations made in Moreshwar 
Balkrishna Pandare & Ors. v. Vithal Vyanku Chavan and Ors. 
[2001 (5) sec 551] and therefore referred the matter to a larger 
Bench and that is how the matter was posted before us. The G 
... 
1 
essence of the judgment in Moreshwar's case (supra) was that 
once an action in Section 33-B is taken, Section 88C of the 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short the 
'Act') has no relevance. 
2. In the instant case, the original owner had expired. 
H 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A Undoubtedly, the certificate had been issued to him under 
+"'-
Section 88-C with reference to the qualification possessed by 
the landlord as on 151 April, 1957. The question which fell for 
consideration before the High Court was the effect of the death 
of the original landlord who had either applied for issuance of 
B certificate under Section 88-C, which is pending, or was the 
certificate already granted in his favour. In Paragraph 27 of 
Moreshwar's case (supra) it is held that once certificate under 
Section 88-C is issued and the landlord has issued notice in 
exercise of the rights under Section 33-B of the Act and proceeds 
c to file an application for possession under Section 33-B read 
with Section 29 of the Act, the relief under Section 88-C g

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