RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE & ORS versus GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 04-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
839 
RAMCHANDRA KESHA V ADKE & ORS 
v. 
GOVIND J01'1 CHA V ARE AND ORS. 
March 4, 1975 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy Act (67 of 1948)-S, 5 (3).-Scope of. 
Section 5(3) (b) of the 
Bombay Tenancy Act enacts that a tenant may 
terminate the tenancy at any time by surrendering his interest .as a !~nant in 
favour of the landlord provided that such surrender shall be m wntmg and 
shall be verified before the Mamlatdar in the manner prescribed. 
Rule 2-A 
of the Rules states that the Mamlatdar, when verifying a surrender of a 
tenancy by a tenant, stall satisfy himself after such inquiry as he thinks fit, 
that the tenant understands the nature and consequences of the surrender and 
also that it is voluntary. and shall endorse his findings in that behalf upon 
the document of surrender. 
The appellants. who were the landlords of certain lands, made an applica-
tion to the Mamlatdar stating that the tenant was w:lling to 
~.urrender his 
tenancy in the agriculural land and prayed for verification under s. 5 ( 3) of 
the Bombay Tenancy Act ( 67 of 1948). 
The Mamlatdar did not verify the 
surrender. 
The Circle Officer recorded the statement of the tenant· and the 
landlords and passed an order on the application. 
Mutation entry was made 
in the record of rights of the village and the landlords' name was entered 
in 'the register as a person in actual possession of the land. 
A few months 
later, however, the tenant made an application for a declaration that he was 
. the tenant is possession of the land in dispute. 
This was dismissed by the 
Tenancy Aval Karkun. 
The tenant thereupon preferred an appeal before the 
Special Deputy Collector, who held that the order passed by the Circle Officer 
was not an order passed by the Mamlatdar as required by the tenancy law 
.and as such it was without jur'sdiction and void and that there was no verifi-
cation of the surrender application as required by law. 
The revision applica-
tion preferred to the Maharasthra Revenue Tribunal by the landlords was 
dismissed. 
The fandlords' writ petition was dismissed by 
the 
High 
Court 
holding that the alleged surrender was a nullity as there was no compliance 
with the mandatory requirements of s. 5 (3) of the Ilombay Tenancy Act, 
read with r. 2-A. 
On appeal to this Court it was contended th&t the provisions of r. 2-A are 
directory and not mandatory and that there had been a substantial compliance 
with the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Act and the rule. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: !(a) The imperative language the beneficient purpose 
and 
im-
portance of s. 5(3 )(b) of the Act and r. 2-A for efficacious implementation 
of the general scheme of the Act-all unerringly lead to the conclus'on that 
\hey were intended to be mandatory. Neglect of any of these statutory requisites 
would be fatal. 
Disobedience of even one of these mandate' would render 
!he ;1 rre.nder invalid and ineffectual. 
rB44Gl 
(b) The language of s. 5(3) (b) and r. 2-A is 
absolute. 
explicit and 
peremptor~-. The words '.provided that' read with the words 'shall be' repeatedly 
used in s. 5(3)(b) make the terminat'on of tenancy by surrender entirely sub-
ject to the imperative conditions laid down ;n the proviso. This proviso throws 
a benevolent rin11 of prote<;tion arnund tenants. 
It is designed to protect a 
tmz,n.t on two fronl• agamst t.>.vo types of dangers--one 
ag<.~nst possiblr, 
~oerc10n, _undue influence and trickery proceeding from the landlord and the 
o:her a.gams.t the tenai:it's own ignorance. improvidence and attitude of heloless 
'elf-'.'"'"r'.al1on stemming from his weaker position 
in 
the 
tena·nt-landlord 
1 el::<10:1sh1p. 
[844E-FJ 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
U975l 3 s.c.R. 
(c) The 
intentio~ of the legislatu.re is to be ascertained .. upon. a re,·iew 
of the language, sub1ect matter and 1~1portance of the proV1S10n m re.la'~'on 
to general object to he secured, the mischief to be TJre~ented and the l<n".dy 
to be 1":omotcd by the Act. 
[843F] 
Liverrwol Boroualt Bank v. Turna (1861) 30 L.J. Ch. 379 at p .. 
'30; 
" 
E 
" ·ry 
f 
d t 
Craise on Statute Law, 7th 
do. p ... o •. re erre 
o. 
In the instant case all that the Circle Officer did was t~ record the st:tte-
ment of the tenant and landlord and make the ord~r. He did not say a w1;>r<f 
that he was satisfied that the tenant had volunt~nly made a s~1-rend~r a1;ter 
understanding its nature and co

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