SAKHARAM SHRIPATI JADHAV, DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS versus CHANDRAKANT ALIAS MADHAV LAXMAN AGNIHOTRI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 08-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SAKHARAM SHRIPATI JADHAV, DECEASED THROUGH 
HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS 
v. 
CHANDRAKANT ALIAS MAD HA V LAXMAN AGNIHOTRI 
AND OTHERS 
JANUARY 8, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, S.43A-
Composite purpose lease and single purpose /ease-Distinction 
between-Lease for composite purpose-Area where only sugarcane 
cultivated-Exempted-Area where along with sugarcane other crops 
C 
cultivated-Not exempted. 
The Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, by s.32(1) 
provides that every tenant should, subject to the other provisions con-
tained in the Act, be deemed to have purchased from the landlord, free 
D 
of all encumbrances .the land held by him as tenant, if such tenant was a 
permanent tenant and cultivated the land personally; or such tenant 
was not a permanent tenant but cultivated the land leased personally; 
and the landlord has not given notice of termination of his tenancy 
under section 31 ; or notice had been given under section 31, but the 
landlord had not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before 31st day of E 
March, 1956 under section 29 for obtaining possession of the land; or 
for certain other contingencies mentioned in section 32 of the Act. Sec-
tion 43A provides that the aforesaid provisions for the benefit of tillers 
or tenants would not apply to land granted to any bodies or persons for 
the cultivation of sugarcane or the growing of fruits or flowers or for the 
breeding oflivestock. 
F 
The appellant-tenant had taken the snit land on lease from 
the respondent. The lease deed was alleged to have been executed for 
the purpose of cultivation of chillies, tobacco, sugarcane and ground-
nuts etc. Suo moto proceedings for fixing the price under s.32(g) were 
taken on the assumption that the appellant-tenant had become statutory 
G 
purchaser by virtue of s.32 of the Act. While the proceedings were 
pending, the respondents made an application under the Act for de-
termination of reasonable rent on the basis that the lands were leased 
for growing sugarcane. 
The trial court rejected the application holding that the lands had 
H 
913 
A 
B 
c 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 1 S.C.R. 
been leased not for growing sugarcane alone, but for different types of 
crops. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer held that the 
purpose of the lease was one for cultivating sugarcane and, as such, the 
lands were governed by the provisions of s.43A of the Act and directed 
the determination of the rent accordingly. The Maharashtra Revenue 
Tribunal as well as the High Court confirmed the aforesaid order. The 
High Court held that though initially there was some mention of other 
crops, the Kabulayat (Lease Deed) in terms intended that th.e land 
would be used for cultivation of sugarcane, and when sugarcane was not 
being cultivated, the other crops could be cultivated till the land was 
again available for sugarcane cultivation, and if that be not the inten-
tion, the entire document could not be correctly and reasonably recon-
ciled and that the predominate purpose being sugarcane cultivation, the 
tenant was not entitled to the right asserted by him. 
In appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
appellant-tenant: (i) that the whole of the land is not for the cultivation 
of sugarcane; (ii) that in an area of I l acres, only· l acre was subjected 
D 
to the cultivation of sugarcane, and that the Kabulayat or the lease 
clearly indicated that there were other purposes; and (iii) that the land 
could not be exempted because the lease was not for the cultivation of 
the sugarcane alone. 
E 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: l. I The Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, I 948 
was enacted with a high purpollol' of transferring the land tilled to the 
tillers of the soil with the exception of the lands which were leased out 
for growing sugarcane because of the need for protection of the industry 
of sugarcane and development of the economy. [924G-H] 
l.2 Having regard to the preamble to the Act and the primary 
purpose of the Act, it would be necessary to remand the matter back to 
the High Court for further remand to the appropriate officer to de-
tennine whether there was any area which was leased exclusively for 
sugarcane crop. If it is held on such enqniry that the entire area was for 
G 
sugarcane crop, then the order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered 
with. If, on the other hand, th

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