LexDR. TARAKPRASAD RAJARAM versus SMT. VESTA UKARA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DR. TARAKPRASAD RAJARAM V. SMT. VESTA UKARA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 B [K.N SINGH ANDS. RATNAVEL PANDIA1,, JJ.] c D • E Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 29, 3 /-A (di-Eviction application-Maintainability-Conditions-Person obwined right by assignment, transfer or by auction sale, or otherwise including gift or will-Not 'Landlord'-Legislative intention of. Appellant on behalf of minor landlord, who got title by will, initiated eviction proceeding against the respondent-tenants under Sec· lion 29 read with section 31-A(d) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agri· cultural Lands Act. 1948 before the Mamlatdar on the ground of bona .fide requirement of the land for his personal cultivation. Respondent· tenants raised preliminary objection on the question of maintainability of the suit on the ground that as the appellant, being a transferee of the hind and having not inherited the same was not the 'landlord' under Section 31-A. Upholding the objection of the Respondents the Mamlat- dar dismissed the application. Appellant's appeal before District Deputy Collector and his revision before the Revenue Tribunal were dismissed. Challenging the orders of the Revenue Courts, writ applica- tion was tiled in the High Court, which was also dismissed and against which the present appeal was filed. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, F HELD: J. Section 31-A(d) requires that the name of the person applying for the eviction of the tenant or of his ancestors should be reeorded as landlord in the record of rights on I.1.1952 and he should further be recorded as landlord on the appointed day, namely. 15.6.1955. Both these conditions are required to be fulfllled before a suit or an application is maintainable by a landlord for the eviction of G the tenant. If either of the two conditions are not satisfied, the applica- tion for eviction the tenant is not maintainable. The provisions of clanse (d) further provides thai even if the landlord's name is not recorded, but if the name of his ancestor is recorded similarly if the landlord is a member of joint family, the name of any member is recorded the appli· cation would be maintainable. This provision indicates the legislative H intent that a person succeeding to the property from his ancestor is 514 -- ... TARAKPRASAD v. VESTA UKARA 515 entitled to maintain the application for eviction of a tenant provided he fulfils other conditions. But a.person who may have obtained right to the agricultural land by assignment, transfer, or by auction sale or in any similar mode, is not included within the expression of 'landlord' entitling him to evict the tenant. 2. After the amendment of Section 31A(d) the Legislature made it clear that transferees and assignees from persons whose name may be appearing in the record of fights during the relevant period are not to be treated as landlords for the purposes of the Section. The expression 'or otherwise' occurring in clause (d) indicates that a person ctaiming title by transfer, assignment, court sale or in any other mode like gift, or will even from ancestor .will not be a landlord for the purposes of the Sec- tion. A person inheriting property from his ancestor would be landlord provided his ancestor's name appears in the record of rights during the required period. But a person claiming title on the basis of transfer, assignment, auction sale or otherwise including gift or will· from the predecessors-in-title even though he may be his ancestor, and his name may be recorded in the record of rights during the required period, will not be entitled to maintain a suit for eviction of a tenant. The Legislature placed this _restriction in order to protect the interest of the tenants and to prevent avoidance of the restrictions placed by the ceiling laws. In the absence of any such provision a landlord c9uld transfer land to his descendents by gift or will-to evade the ceiling law and to evict tenants. Under Section 31-A(d) such a beneficiary is not entitled to maintain a suit for the eviction of a tenant from the agricultur.al holding as he would not be a landlord within the meaning of the Section. Waman Ganesh Joshi v. Canu Cuna Khapre, 61 Bombay L.R. 1267; Khal/iu/la Hasmiya v. Yesu, 50 Bombay L.R. 201; overruled. Bl)qnushanker Ambalal v. Laxman Kala &·Ors., [1960], Gujarat Law Reporter 169, approved. ' Umraomiya Akbarmiya Malek v. Bhulabhai Mathurbhai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.