LAXMI BAI SADASHIV DATE versus ANNAPPA SIDAPPA NARGUDE & ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 12-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

LAXMI BAI SADASHIV DATE 
.A 
l'. 
ANNAPPA SIDAPPA NARGUDE & ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 1993 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.J 
B 
Bombay· Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948: 
Sections 30, 32, 32-G, 43-A and 43-B-Detennination of reasonable 
rent-Invokable by and beneficial to either pany-Tenants-Whether become C 
owners on Tiller's day-Matter remitted to High Court. 
The appellant-landlady initiated proceedings against the Respon-
dent-tenants for determination or reasonable rent under Section 43-B or 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Respondents 
claimed that they became absolute owners or the land on the tiller's day D 
i.e. on 1.4.1957 by virtue of Sections 32 and 32-G of the Act. The proceed-
ings ended in favour of the Respondents. On appeal by the appellant, 
Deputy Collector remitted the matter back to the first Court for determin-
ing the quantum or reasonable renL The Respondents approached the 
Revenue Tribunal by way or revision, but were unsuccessful. Hence they E 
approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. The High Court found 
that the two provisions viz. Sections 30 and 43-B were conflicting and an 
application under Section 43-B did not lie in the race or the provisions or 
S.30. Against the High Court's order, the landlady preferred the present 
appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The provisions or Section 43·8 or the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultdral Land Act, 1948 start with a non obstante clause and are 
dependent on section 43·A. As ls plain from. its language in clause (1), the G 
landlord as wen as the tenant can apply in the manner provided in the 
section for having reasonable rent determined. Significantly, in order to 
determine the reasonable rent the Mamlatdar to whom an application is 
required to be made, is to have due regard to factors mentioned in clause 
(4). Clause (4) further provides that the reasoQable rent determined by the 
Mamlatdar under clause (2) shall be payable w.e.f. the date speclfled by H 
215 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
the Mamlatdar in that behalf and that shall be deemed to be the rent fixed 
under the lease in lieu of the rent, if any, agreed between the parties. It is 
thus obvious that section 43-8 is an on-going provision and not damp 
squib. The object of the provision is to substitute reasonable rent in place 
of the contractual rent, should there be any. It is invokable both by the 
B 
landlord as well as by the tenant. It would not be wrong to say that the 
provision is beneficial to either party. Thus the High Court was in error 
in shadowing section 43-B with the provisions of section 30. (219-8-E] 
2. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for decision on the 
other two questions left undecided. It is left to the High Court to decide 
C whether it would like to await the decision of the Aval Karkun on the 
question of reasonable rent and then decided the matter before it or shall 
it go ahead with the decision of the petition by itself letting the question 
of reasonableness of the rent to take its own course. In either situation the 
High Court has the discretion but somewhere it bas to have a conDuencing 
point. (219-F-H; 220-A-B] 
D 
E. 
F 
CIVIL APPELL.A TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 848 of 
1973. 
From the Judgment and order dated 27th June, 1972 of the Bombay 
High Court in Special Civil Application No.1804 of 1968. 
V.N. Ganpule, Mrs. Punam Kumari and J.S. Wad for the Appellant. 
P.H. Parekh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court 
of Bombay dated 27th June, 1972 passed in special civil application No. 
1804 of 1968. 
•· 
The appellant herein has claimed herself to be the landlady of a 
G parcel of land in a village in District Kolhapur, Maharashtra, details of 
which are available in the Judgment under appeal. The respondents are 
tenants thereon under a very old document of lease. Proceedings started 
between the two, in the fir~t instance in the Court of Awai Karkun, the 
appellant herein claiming that the contractual rent was :in-adequate and 
H that reasonable rent be determined under section 43-B of tombay Tenancy 
L.B. SADASHIV v. A.S. NARGUDE 
217 
and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The claim was asserted on the founcia-
A 
tional fact that the lease granted in favour of the respondent was for 
cultivation of sugarcane or for growing of fruits and flowers as cover
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.