LexRAJA RAM MAHADEV PARANJYPE AND OTHERS versus ABA MARUTI MALI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
! ' (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 739 In the result, the appJals are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, we make no order about costs. Appeals dismissed. RAJA RAM MAHADEV PARANJYPE AND OTHERS v. ABA MARUTI MALI AND OTHERS (S. K. DAs, A. K. SARKAR and RAGHUJIAR DAYAL, JJ.) Landlord and Tenant -Ejeetment-Non-payment of r.nt /or thm years-Statutory right to eject -Power of court to gram rel!£/ -Equity-Bombay Tenancy a.nd Agricultural Lan.U Act, 1948 (Bom. 67 o/ 1918), ••· 14, 25, 29. • Jn the first three. appeals the tenants were in default in paying rents for three years and due notices had been served by the landlords terminating the tenancies. The land- lords thus acquired statutory rights to eject the tenants and applied to the Mamlatdar, as required by s. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for possession over the lands •. The Mamlatdar rerused to make an order for possession on the r-ound that the tenants were entitled to relief against forfeiture on equitable principles. Jn the fourth appeal also tile tenants had defaulted in paying rents for thtte yean. Jn respect of the default in the first year the tenant had been granted relief agairut forfeiture under s. 25(1) of the Act. The tenant contended that the default in the first year had merged in the order under s. 25(1) and could not be relied upon for holding that he·had defaulted for three years. Htltl, that the landlords, were entitled to orders for poucs- sion in all the four cases. Upon default in payment of rent for three years a statutory right accrued to the landlords under s. 25(2) to terminate the tenancy and to obtain possession. There was no provision in the Act for granting relief against forfeiture in such a case; the provision in s. 29(3) that the Mamlatdar "shall pass such orders as he deems fit" did not give him such a power. The Act merely empowered him to grant relief where the tenant was not in arrears for more than two years. No relief against forfeiture could be granted to the JHJ NiU...IA Prosd v. St<ll •f BU.. Hidaµtolt.A J, JllOJ Demn/m J. J~J Bajo B.. M o/tadn Pt11aniJ/J1 v. Aba M...ii llali 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. tenants on equitable grounds; relief on equitable grounds could only be granted in cases of contractual rights and not in case! of statutory rights. !'\or could relief be granted under s. 114 Transfer of Proprrty Act as that provision was inconsis- tent with the provisions of the Boin hay Act and was thorefore inapplicable. R. V. Boteler, (1864) 33 L. I. M. C. IOI, referred to. Raghu•·ir, Vyasaraya Acharya v. Go.,1nd Mo~re Bandekar, (1955) I. L. R. Born. 1069, disapproved. Held, further, that in the fourth appeal the default in the first year could also he taken into con')idcration in comput .. ing of three years inspite of the tenant having b~n relieved against forfeiture for that year. The order grantinl( the f'lief did not wipe out the default, it only prevented the trrmina- tion of the tenancy for that default alone. Crv!L APPELLATE Ji::RI~DICTION : Civil Appeals Noe. 258-259 of 5!l and 404 of 60. Appeals by special lca.v(l from the judgment and orders dated Julv 2. 1956, January 9, 1957 and June 16, 1958 of the Bombay High Court in Speoia.l Civil Applications Nos 1471, 1527 and 2!190 of 56 and 1431 of 1958 respectively. V. M. Limaye, V. L. Narasimha ftfoorthy, E. Udayaratnam and S. S. Sh1.1k/.a, for. the appellants. B. ,C. Kamble and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondents Nos. land 3 (in C. S. No. 258/59). S. G. l'atwardhan, B. C. Kmnble and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. I ( in C. A. No. 259/59) and the respondent in (C.A. No. t04 of 60). Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent (in C. A. No. 9 of60). 1961. December I. The JudgmPnt of the Court was delivered by SARK.AR, J .. -These four appeals are by landlords whose applications to the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for pOSBession of the lands held by their tenants, on the grounds had that the t.enancy had been termi- nated by due notices on the tenants' failure to pay rents for three years, were diemiBBed. • (1) s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 741 These authorities refused in three of these ca..oes to make an order for possession either be- cause the tenants had paid. up all rent which had fallen in arrear or because the authorities thought it proper on the facts of the case to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.