MANEKSHA ARDESHIR IRANI & ANR. versus MANEKJI EDULJI MISTRY & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 04-10-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY, KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
341 
MANEKSHA ARDESHIR IRANI & ANR. 
v. 
MANEKJI EDULJl M~STRY & ORS. 
October 4, 1974 
[A. N. RAY C.J., K.K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGJRISWAMJ, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Bom. 55 of 1948). 13. 4B and 88B 
(2)-Scope of 
. 
(I) Under s. 4B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, 
no renancy of any land shall be terminated merely on the ground that the period, 
fixed by agreement or usage, for its duration, has e?tpired. 
The appellant. became a tenant under the respondent and the period of tenancy 
was for 5 years ending on Feb. 28, 1948. Under s. 23(1) (b) of the Bombay Tenancy 
Act, 1939 the lease was deemed to be for 10 years and the appellant became a pro-
tected tenant by vr· ue of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 
But the effect o introduction of s. 88B in the 1948 Act 
was that the 
appellant no longer 
remained a protected tenant. After the appellant 
ceased to be a protected .tenant on Aug. 1, 1956, and the orginal contractual 
tenancy had ceased, the appellant was in occupation of the lands only on sufferance. 
If a tenant, after termination of the lease, is in possession without the consent of the 
landlord, be is a tenant by sufferance. It is only where a tenant continues in possession 
with the consent of the landlord that he can be called a tenant holding over or a 
tenant at will. The appellant did not have any consent and the respondent never 
iiave any consent to him to hold over. He gave a notice terminating the tenancy 
·m 19$5 and another notice in 1958, calling upon the appellant to deliver possession. 
Tenancy being a matter of privity of parties there was no tenancy and the appellant 
·was a trespasser. Therefore, s. 4B has no application. [343G-344B] 
(2) Under s. 88B (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 
1948, the Collector grants a certificate after holding an enquirY that the conditions 
in the proviso to s. 88B(I) are satisfied by any trust. The enquiry is between the 
I 
· Collector and the Trust. · 
F 
G 
Therefore, the appellant, who was a tenant by sufferance under the respondent, 
and who at no stage denied the fact that the lands are the properties of a trust was 
not entitled to a notice when the Collector held an enquirY under s. 88B(2) for the 
.purpose of granting a certificate to the respondent. [344B-DJ 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 1013 of 1973. 
From the Judgement and Order dated the 7th $€ptember, 1972 of 
the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 453/60 from Ori-
ginal Decree. 
M. C. Bhandate and K. Rajendra Choudhary for the appellant. 
V.S. Desai R.G. Samam; P. C. Bhattari; K. J. John, J.B. Dadachanji, 
O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the respondents. 
The Judgment · of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C. J. · The question in tlii.s appeal by certificate is whether 
-the appellant is entitled to protection of section 4B of 1he Bombay 
·Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as 
the 1948 Act. 
H 
Section 4B states that no tenancy of any land shall be terminated 
merely on .. the ground that the period fixed by agreement or usage for 
its duration has exiVred. 
342 
SUl'llEME COURT REPORTS 
(1975] 2 s.c.1. 
The appellant became: a tenant -0f the respondent for a period of 
five years with effect from 1 March, 1943. The tenancy was in respect 
of certain agricultural lands belonging to the respondent. The lease 
contained a clause for renewal for five years. The appellant did not 
exercise the option of renewal. The lease expired on 28 February, 
1948. 
The respondent by a notice dated 25 October, 1955 terminated the 
tenancy with effect from 1 April, 1957. The respondent gave another 
notice to the appellant on 10 June, 1958 without prejudice to the 
earlier notice ·and called upon the appellant to deliver possession with· 
in 7 days. The respondent on 14 September, 1959 filed a suit against 
the appellant for possession. The trial Court did not grant a decree 
for possession. On appeal the High Court also held that the appellant 
was n0t liable to be evicted. On appeal, this Court remanded the mat-
ter to the High Court for a report on two questions. First, whether 
the 
appellan~ was a protected tenant on 1 March, 1953. Seco11d, if 
the appellant was a protected tenant on 1 March, 1953 whether the ap-
pela11t could claim benefit of section 5 of the Amending Act, 1952. The 
High Court submitted the report holding that the appellant was a pro-
te

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