LexSHRIRAM MANDIR SANSTHAN @ SHRI RAM SANSTHAN PUSDA versus VATSALABAI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) SHRIRAM MANDIR SANSTHAN @ SHRI RAM SANSTHAN PUSDA v. VA TSALABAI AND OTHERS DECEMBER 17, 1998 [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] A B Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958- Sections 129 (b) and 54-Tenancy of lani:Js which are property of trusts, inter C alia, for educational purpose or institutions for public religious worship, whether heritable- Held, Section 129 excludes Section 54, which provides for heritability of tenancies, in its application to such trust or institution- Under the Tenancy Act of 1958, heritability is to be governed by Section 54- By excluding Section 54, the clear intention is to make such tenancies non- heritable- Interpretation of statutes-Legislative intent. D Interpretation of statutes- Harmonious construction-Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958-Sections 54 and 129 (b)-Section 129 excluding application of inheritance provided in Secti~n 54-Whether tenancies not covered by Section 54 would be governed by ordinary law of succession- Held, an express provision which excludes the E operation of certain provisions cannot be made nugatory by resorting to general law-Where Section 54 is made expressly non-applicable to certain lands under the Tenancy Act of 1958, the tenancy in those is not heritable at all-Entire Section 54 must be read harmoniously. The appellants were trusts set up for educational purpQ$e or institutions for public religious worship covered by Section 129 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958. The respondents and/or their predecessors-in-title were tenants in respect of lands belonging to the appellants. On the death of the tenant, the appellants filed an.application F for summary eviction of the respondents, contending that the tenancy had G come to an end and that they were entitled to obtain possession of the lands. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in revision, held that the tenants had not become statutory purchasers, but they were entitled to succeed to the tenancy. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants on the ground that the issue was covered by a Full Bench decision 585 I-I 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A of the High Court in Khanqah-Kadria Trust (Wakl), Ba/apur v. Shevantabai, (1989) Mah LJ 891. In appeal before this Court, the question was of the heritability of tenancies of such trusts. B Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: I. Section 54 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha region) Act which makes tenancies heritable is expressly made inapplicable to tenancies of lands falling under Section 129(b). Section 54 is nothing but a statement of the ordinary law of inheritance and succession C and makes, if at all, only a slight departure from it. Heritability is to be governed entirely by Section 54. Therefore, by excluding Section 54, the clear intention is to make such tenancies non-inheritable. [591-C] 2. The entire Section 54 must be read harmoniously. The legislative intention as seen from the scheme of Section 54 is, that heritability of any D tenancy falling within the definition of that term under the Tenancy Act of 1958 is governed exclusively by Section 54. Where Section 54 is made expressly non applicable under the Tenancy Act of 1958 in Section 129, the tenancy is not heritable at alL An express provision in the Act which excludes the operation of certain provisions, cannot be made nugatory by resorting to general law. The rights and privileges of any tenant of land belonging to a E trust or religious institution would only be as prescribed under the tenancy Act of 1958. A resort cannot be had to any other law for the time being in force to determine their rights and privileges. [591-F; 592-81 F Khanqah-Kadria Trust (Wakj), Balapur v. Shevantabai, (1989) Mah LJ 891, overruled Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar, [19851 2 SCC 683, distinguished Ratan Lal Adukia v. Union of India, [19891 3 SCC 537, referred to 3. The clear intention of Section 129 is to protect certain lands from tenancy legislation where the lands or income from such lands or income G from such lands or income from such is being utilised for public purposes set out there. In this context, if the tenancy of such lands is not heritable this would clearly be in furtherance of the purpose of exempting such lands under Section 129. [593-C] CIVIL APPEL LA TE J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.