A
HARi SAKHARAM DHANAVATE (DEAD) BY LRS.
B
c
v.
AN. PATILTUKARANE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.
NOVEMBER 14, 1995
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]
Land Laws:
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 :
Ss.25( 1). 25(2~Agricultural tenancy-Ejectment of tenant-Tenant in
alTears of rent beyond three years-Held, ejectment must follow on landlord's
giving an intimation to the tenant.
The appellant-tenant filed the present appeal challenging the judg-
D
ment of the High Court deciding against him the issue of arrears of rent
and ejectment under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948.
E
F
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was right in holding that the case was
covered under S.25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 and the Mamlatdar could not proceed under S.25(1) of the Act permit-
ting the tenant to save the tenancy on payment of arrears of rent. (233-E-F]
1.2. The distinction between the provisions of S.25(1) and 25(2) of
the Act is that the former enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against
termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent by facilitating payment of
rent on call to the tenant to pay it directly to the landlord or in Court
within 15 days of the order;· whereas the latter is an exception providing
that if the tenant is in arrears of rent for any three years, the landlord has
G
to give an intimation to that effect to the tenant within 3 months of each
default and then ejectment must follow as a consequence. (233-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1125 of
1979.
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.75 of the Bombay High
232
H.S. DHANAVATE v. AN.PATIL TUKARANE
233
Court in Spl. Civil Application No. 1383 of 1971.
V. Krishnamurthy and Rakesh K. Sharma for K.R. Chowdhary, (NP)
for the Appellants.
Ms. J.S. Wad for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The narrow point before the High Court as also before the Revenue
Authorities was whether the appellant-tenant was in arrears of rent beyond
3 years and could actioi;i. be taken under Sec. 25(1) or 25(2) of the Bombay
A
B
Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?
C
The distinction between the two provisions is apparent. Sec. 25(1)
enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against termination of tenancy for
non-payment of rent by facilitating payment of rent on call to the tenant
to pay it directly to the landlord or in Court with costs of the proceedings
within 15 days from the date of the order, and on failure of which to suffer D
an ejectment. In contrast, Sec. 25(2) carves out an exception that if the
tenant is in arrears on his failure to pay rent for any three years, the
landlord has to give an intimation to that effect to the tenant within a
period of 3 months of each default, and then ejectment must follow as a
consequence and the remedial provisions under Sec. 25(1) cannot come to E
the rescue of the tenant. The finding recorded by the High Court is that
the instant was a case covered under Sec. 25(2) and that the Mamlatdar
could not proceed under Sec. 25(1) permitting the tenant to save the
tenancy on payment of arrears of rent within 15 days of the order. The
High Court has given adequate reasons to come to that view. We see no
justification to alter the same.
The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
F
Lex