LexRAMCHANDRA versus TUKARAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAMCHANDRA
v.
TUKARAM AND ORS.
A 11g11st 24, 1965
[P.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.,
K.
N.
WANCHOO.
M. HIDAYATIJLLAH, J. c. SllAH A:-;!) s. M. SIKRJ, JJ.J
Bornhay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, ( Vidarbha region and Kutch
Area) Ac1 (99 of 1958). ss. 38 and 132(2) and (3)-Scope of.
·11ie land in dispule as in the Yi<larbha region originally forming part
of the State of Madhya Pradesh, to which the Berar Regulation of Agri-
cultural Leases Act, 1951 (Berar Act) applied.
Under the Act, a land·
lord requiring land for personal cultivation, could terminate a lease by
issuing a notice to the le-;see under s. 9, and obtaining an order in that
behalf from 1hc Revenue Officer under s. 8(1 )(g) and then, applying t<>
the Revenue Officer for ejectment of the lessee.
On the landlord"s appli-
cation, the Officer, after nu1king such summary enquiry as he dccn1s fit,
may pass an order restoring possession to the landlord. After the merger
of the Vidarbha region with the State of Bombay, the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha region and Kutch Area) Act (Tenancy
Act) was pa9Sed on December 30, 1958 re9oalin~ the Berar AC1. Section
36 of !he Tenancy Act set up a procedure for obtaining possession from
a tenant and provided that the landlord may apply to the Tabsildar who,
after holdlng an enquiry, may pao;s such order as he deems fit.
Section
J8( I) authorised the landlord to obtain pos.•e.~•ion of land from a tenant.
if the landlord. bona fide required the land for personal cuhivation and
in order to effectuate that right, the landlord must give a notice of one
year's duration in \vriting and make an application for pos~cssion un<lcr
•. 36, within the prescribed period. lly s. 38(3) it wa< provided that the
right of a landlord to tem1inate a tenancy under s. 38( l) shall he subject
to the conditions contained in els. (a) to (c) of sub-s. (3) and sub-s. (4)
imposed certain restrictions on the right of the landlord to terminate a
tenancy.
Rv s. 112(2) :my ri!(ht, already ae<juired before 30th December
1958 remained cnforccahlc. and any legal
proc<~cding
in
respect
of
such righr.
could be instituted,
continued and disposed of as if the
·renancy Acr had not hcen passed.
But to this reservation an exception
was made bv s. 132(3) that a proceeding pending on 30th December
1958, w:1o; ro he deemed to have been instituted and pending hcfore the
corresponding authority under 1he Tenancy Act, anJ v•as lo he <lic;poseJ of
in accordance with its provisions.
The appellant had ohtaincd from the ReYenue Officer concernclt an
order. dctenninin!? the tenancy of the respondent under s. 8( 1) ( 1'.?l 0f the
Rerar AcL effective from
l~t April 1958.
On 15th f\1;1y
!~59. after
the TenanC\' Act had come into force the appellant applied to the Tahsildar
under s. 36 for an order for
re~oration of possess.ion.
The Tah'\ildar
ordered rco;toration of poc;,o;~sion. but on appeal the Sub-Divisional Officer
set aside the order on the ground that the appellant failed lo comply with
the requirements of s. 38 of the Tenancy Act. and the Revenue Tnbunal
confirmed the order of the Suh-Divisional Officer.
In a petition for 1he
is.coue of a writ. the Hi~h Court set aside an the orders of the subordinate
tribunals .,_nd remanded 1he case to the Tahsildar for dealing \\·(th 1hc
application in the light of directions ~iven in its judgment. The High Court
A
8
c
D
•
E
•
G
H
•
r
•
-
•
I
RAMCHANDRA V. TUKARAM
595
A
held that though s. 38(1) of the Tenancy Act did not apply to the appel-
lant's application, by vitrue of s. 132(3) the provision of s. 38(3) and
( 4) were applicable to it.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the
High Court had not correctly interpreted s. 132(3) and that it should
have restored the order passed by the Tahsildar and should not have re-
opened the enquiry.
HELD : The Tahsildar was competent to entertain the appellant's appli-
cation for recovery of possession.
Once an order \Vas passed under s.
S{J)(g) of the Berar Act by the Revenue Officer, the only enquiry con-
templated to be made on an application under s. 19 of the Act, was
a summary enquiry before an order for possession was mado in favour
of the landlord.
At that stage there was no scope for the application
of the conditions and restrictions prescribed by s. 38(3) and (4), for.
those provisions do not apply to proceedings to enforce righExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.