LexHEIRS AND LRS. OF DECEASED SOMABHAI KANJIBHAI BARIA versus PATEL PARSH OTT AMDAS JAMDAS (D) AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
HEIRS AND LRS. OF DECEASED
SOMABHAI KANJIBHAI BARIA
""1"
v.
PATEL PARSH OTT AMDAS JAMDAS (D) AND ANR.
B
MARCH 7, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA,·JJ.)
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
"
'
~:
Sections 32G(6) and 88(1)(c}-Schedule III-Condition Precedents for
e applicability of.
I
.........
Gujarat Watans Abolition Act, 1961:
r
Section ~Applicability of.
D
Tenano--Possession of Watan lands-Abolition of watans with effect
from 1.4.63-R.egrant despite abolition of watans-Tennination of tenancy
with effect from 31.3.61 and filing of civil suit for possession on 14.8.62-No
consent given by landlord either in writing or by acquiescence subsequent to
detennination of tenancy-Detennination of rights of tenancy between the
E partie9-Held jurisdiction of Civil Court was not batTed.
The appellants were in possession of watan lands as tenants of
respondents. Despite abolition of watans with effect from 1.4.1963 by
Gujarat Watans Abolition Act, 1961 re-grant was made in favour of the
respondents on 23.4.1966. In the meanwhile the respondents terminated
,_
F the tenancy of appellants with effect from 31.3.1961 and on 14.8.1962 filed
a suit for possession. The appellants raised objections that the Civil Court
> -'i'
has no jurisdiction to decide the question whethertheywere tenants under
the respondents and that they were not liable to ejectment on the basis of
'{
termination of tenancy. Relying on Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy and
G Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the Civil Court dismissed the suit and held
that appellants were tenants and therefore until the question of tennina·
tion of tenancy was decided by Mamlatdar the Civil Court had no Juris·
diction.
On revision the High Court held that the Civil Court was wrong in
H its concl~sion that the tenancy court has jurisdiction to determine the
580
-t
L.RS. OFS.K. BARIA v. P.P.JAMDAS(D)
581
rights of the tenancy between the parties and accordingly reversed the A
decree and remitted the matter for trial according to law. In appeals to
this court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that by operation
of sub-section (6) of Section 32(G) of the Tenancy Act despite the abolition
of the watan and re-grant in favour of the respondent, the right of tenancy
created in favour of the tenants still subsists. Therefore, the question
whether the tenancy was legally terminated was to be decided only by the
mamlatdar and not by the civil court.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
B
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that the condition C
precedent prescribed under Section 88(1)(c) of the Tenancy Act read with
section 9 of Watan Act has not been complied with and that therefore, the
civil court alone has jurisdiction to decide the question. (584-E]
2. For application of sub-section (6) of Section 32(G) of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 two essential conditions are D
required to be satisfied. The kind ofland tenures,. referred to in sub-section
(6) should find place in the III Schedule. The Watan Abolition Act, 1961
is not part of Schedule III. Secondly though the re-grant is made in favour
of the bolder of the watan with a condition tliat it is not transferable, the
lease created before the re-grant must be subsisting. In that event, the E
tenant would be entitled to purchase the land under section 32(G). In this
case the tenancy was terminated with effect from 31.3.1961 and the suit for
possession was filed on 14.8.1962. After the determination of the tenancy
and after the respondent filed the suit, there was no consent by the
landlord either in writing or by acquiescence or by conduct In that view
of the matter, the civil court was clearly in error in holding that there exists F
a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and
the appellants and that, therefore, the mamlatdar is the competent
authority to decide the dispute of the tenancy rights. (583-G-H, 584-D]
Maneksha Ardeshir Irani v. Manekil Edulji Mistry, (1975) 2 S.C.R. 341, G
relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2685,
2872-73 of 1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14/15-7-1977 of the Gujarat H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995) 2 S.C.R.
A High Court in C.R.A. No. 397 of 1977.
B
V.N. Ganpule, Vimal Dave and Mrs. Neelam Kalsi for the Appellant.
S.K. Dhokakia, H.A. Raichura and Ms. Promila Choudhary for the
Respondents.
The following Order of tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.