LexMORESHWAR BALKRISHNA PANDARE AND ORS. versus VITHAL VYANKU CHAVAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MORESHWAR BALKRISHNA PANDARE AND ORS.
\(
VITHAL VYANKU CHA YAN AND ORS.
MAYll,2001
B
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948-Section 33B read
with Section 29. Section 88C(1) and 88(d){i)(iv)-Exemption Certificate-
.;..... .
C Grant of, since annual income of landlord less than Rs. 1500 as on April, I,
1957-Revocation thereof-Plea that subsequent income cannot be taken
into account-Held, exemption certificate could be revoked, if the annual
income of certificate holder subsequently exceeds Rs. 1500, even if the annual
income was lesser as on April, 1957.
D
Revocation of Exemption Certificate-limitation-Relevant date~Held,
E
the date of filing of application under Section 338 read with Section 29
would be the relevant date and not the date of final order passed therein.
.
.
Exemption Certificate under Section 88C(4) of Bombay Tenancy and.
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was granted by Mamlatdar in favour of
predecessor of appellant-landlord against predecessor of respondents-tenant
after their death.
Respondents' appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar before Sub-
Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) was allowed. High Court allowed the appeal of the
F appellants, confirming the order of the Mamlatdar, holding that for the purpose
of Section 88C, the total income of the deceased landlord as on 1st April,
1957 should be the criteria and since the annual income of the landlord was
less than Rs. 1500, the exemption certificate was rightly granted.
Appellants, after due notice to the respondents, terminated the tenancy
G of the respondents and inade application under Section 338 read with Section
29 of the Act, before Mamlatdar, for possession of the land for personal
cultivation. During pendency of the application, respondents applied under
Section 88D(i)(iv) of the Act, for revocation of exemption certificate before
Additional Commissioner, on the ground that annual income of the appellants
had exceeded Rs. 1500 which was rejected as not maintainable in view of the
H
712
.,.... -
M.13. PAND/\RE v. V.V. CHA VAN
713
previous order of the High Court. Respondents' writ petition against the order A
of Additional Commissioner was allowed by the High Court and it held that
the application was maintainable and the case was remanded back to
-
""'-
Additional Commissioner.
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that subsequent increase
in the income of the appellant could not be taken into account, since the order B
of High Court, confirming the order of Mamlatdar had become final, and that
the respondents could not seek revocation of the certificate under Section
880, after the appellants had terminated the tenancy of the respondents and
had applied for possession of the land under Section 338.
The respondents contended that the exemption certificate had not C
attained finality as Section 880 gives independent right to the tenant to have
the exemption certificate revoked on establishing that annual income of the
landlord had exceeded Rs. 1500; and that since there is no restraint provided
in· Section 880 with regard to limitation or the stage of any proceedings, it
was permissible for the respondents to seek revocation of the certificate and D
that the application under Section 880 is maintainable till the order in
application under Section 338 read with Section 29 of the Act is finally passed
by Mamlatdar.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I.I. A certificate granted under sub-section (4) of Section 88C E
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act which is final in view of
sub-section (5), can be revoked under Section 880(1) ifthe State Government
is satisfied that in the case of the land referred to in Section 88C, the total
annual income of the person holding the certificate has exceeded Rs. 1500 or
that the total holding of such person exceeds the economic holding, as the
case may be. For grant Of certificate under Section 88C ( 4) income of the F
applicant-landlord as on April I, 1957 is the criteria but for the purpose of
revocation of the certificate what is relevant is the income of the person
holding the certificate as on the date of the application for revocation of the
certificate. The words employed in clause (iv), "the annual income of the
person has exceeded Rs. 1500" imply that even if on April I, 1957 the total G
income was not exceeding Rs. 1500 but subsequently it has exceeded thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.