LexPAPILA BAI versus CHAVDAS T. BHORTAKKE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-.L, PAPILA BAI A V. CHAVDAS T. BHORTAKKE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. JANUARY IO, 2005 B [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: ss. 4 and 88C-'Deemed tenant '-Mortgagee in possession inducting a c person as tenant to cultivate the land-Said person got his name entered in the revenue records as tenant-Certificate u/s 88C granted showing daughter of mortgagor as landlady and the person inducted by mortgagee as tenant- Redemption of mortgage-Plea that there being no express provision in mortgage deed empowering mortgagee to induct a tenant, any person so D inducted would be a trespasser and would not become a deemed tenant- Held, in the instant case, land-owner had obtained a certificate u!s 88C showing the person inducted by mortgagee as tenant-s.88C certificate having become .I ' final, evidences the fact of tenancy-Person inducted by mortgagee was in .,, lawful possession and lawfully cultivating the land, and thus was a deemed tenant within the meaning of s.4. E Father of appellant-plaintiff, mortgaged the suit land in the year 1941, by a conditional sale in favour of the mortgagee. The mortgagee inducted respondent No. I as tenant, into the suit land and the latter got his name entered in the revenue records as tenant of the suit land. The appellant filed a redemption suit which was compromised in her favour. F Later, a certificate under s.88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural " Lands Act, 1948 was issued showing the appellant as landlady and the respondent No. I as tenant. The said certificate under s.88C became final. However, the appellant filed a revision application before the High Court challenging the order under s.88C. She also filed an application for G execution of the compromise decree and for eviction of respondent No.I. Respondent No. I challenged the execution proceedings and ultimately filed • a writ petition before the High Court, which clubbed the appellant's revision with respondent's writ petition and disposed of all the proceedings holding that s.88C certificate having become final was evidence of the fact 215 H 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 1 S.C.R. A that respondent No. I was a tenant of the appellant in respect of the suit land; and that right of respondent No. I which was originally derived from the mortgagee in possession fructified into a full-fledged statutory right because of his fulfilling the description of 'deemed tenant' within the meaning of s.4 of the Act, and, therefore, he could not have been evicted B from the land. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present appeals. It was contended for the appellant that unless there was an express provision in the mortgage deed empowering the mortgageee to induct a tenant, any person inducted on the land would be a trespasser and could not be said to be a deemed tenant. c Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: The High Court has rightly held that respondent was "lawfully" ir. possession of the land and "lawfully' cultivating the land and, therefore, was a deemed tenant within the meanini: of s.4 of the Bombay D Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Consequently, respondent No. I continued to have the right as a tenant even af1ter redemption of the mortgage and extinguishment of the interest of the mortgagee-in- possession. The right of respondent No. 1, which was originally derived from the mortgagee in possession, fructified into a full-fledged statutory right by reason of provision of the Act, because of his fulfilling the E description of 'deemed tenant' within the meaning of s.4 of the Act; and, therefore, respondent No. 1 could not have been evicted from the land. 1219-E-HI Dahya Lal and Ors. v. Ras1ll Mohammed Abdul Rahim, 119631 3 SCR F I and Prabhu v. Ramdev and Ors., !1966) 3 SCR 676, relied on. Hamman/a Daulappa Nimbal v. Babasaheb Da/isaheb londhe, 119951 6 sec 58, held per incurium. Mahabir Gope and Ors. v. Harbans Narain Singh and Ors., 119521 SCR 775 and Harihar Prasad Singh and Anr. v. Must. of Munshi Nath Prasad and G Ors .. 11956) SCR I, distinguished. Jadavji Purshottam v. Dhami Navnitbhai Amaratlal and Ors., 11987) 4 SCC 223; The All India Film Corporation ltd. and Ors. v. Sri Raja Gyan Nath and Ors. 11969) 3 SCC 79; Carona Shoe Co. ltd. and Anr. v. K.C. H Bhaskaran Nair, 119891 2 SCC 395; Naravansa Dharmchandsa v. la~man ,.. .. )\ \ .;., PAPI LA BAI v. T. BHORTAKKE [SRIKRISHN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.