THAKUR SANJEEVAN RAO versus JAIDRATH AND ANR.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 06-09-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
103 
THAKUR SANJEEVAN RAO 
v. 
JAIDRATH AND ANR. 
September 6, 1972 
[A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ. J 
The Hyderabad Tena11cy and Agrk~l:ural Lands Act (21 o! 1950), 
rs. 28(2), 32(2) and 44 and the Hyderabad Abolition of fnams Act (8 
of 1955). s. 3(1)-Scope of. 
The respondents were tenants under the 
appellant 
who 
was 
the 
inarndar. 
On the allegations that the)'. were in arrears of rent for three 
consecutive years 1957 to 1960, the appellant terminated their tenancy 
by giving them not.Ce on June 18, 1960 and on August 4, 1960, filed 
an app ication under ss. 28(2) and 32(2) o'f the Hyderabad Tenancy 
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.. The application was allowed and the 
possession 
of 
the 
lands 
was 
directed 
to 
be 
restored 
to 
the appellant under s. 32(2). 
The order was confirmed 
in 
appeal. 
On revision, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribun&l held :-(i) that the 
.tenants were in arrears of rent, (ii) that all rights and interests with 
respect to the inarn lands had vested absolutely in lhe State with effect 
from July 20, 1955, (iii) under s. 3(1) of tile Hyderabad Abolition 
of :;.1ams Act, 1955, that the landlord was therefore 
dis-entitled 
to 
possession of the inam lands uPder s .. 32(2) of the Tena"CY Act, a"d 
(iv) that occupancy rights had been conferred on the respondents under 
the Abolition Act. The H gh Court on being approached under Art. 227 
of the Constitution, confirmed the order of the Tribunal on different 
grounds relying upon the dec'sion of the Bombay High Court in Datta-
traya Sadashiv v. Ganavati Raghu, (67 Born L.R. 521). These ~rounds 
were, that where. the inam was abolished with effect from 
July 
20, 
1955 under the Abolition Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant 
__ continued to subsist till July I, 1960; but since the appellant in this 
case only g«ve a notiee to the tenants to quit and had not apolied for 
pcissession under s. 32 of the Tenancy Act before that date, the an.,ellant-
landlord was not entitled to claim ]l06session pursuant to that notice. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : 
( 1) The dec'sion in Datraraya Sadashiv's case is not a 
bind~ng precedent for the decision of the present c'ase. 
That case is 
a. direct authority only for a situa:tion where an application is made 
by a 
landlord under s .. 44 of th~ Tenancy Act. 
Reference to ss. 19 
and 25 was made in that case by the High Court only for the purpose 
of fortifying its view of s. 44 bv contrasting the kinds of cases dealt 
with by the Tenancy Act. 
section 44 deals with a landlord's right to 
t.orminate protected tenancy where he requfres the land for cultivating 
it personally. 
(109F-H] 
· 
(2) In tho State of Maharashtra v. Laxn1tUi Ambaji, (Al.'R. 1971 
S.C. 1859) this Court, while considering certain provisions of the Tenancy 
Act observed, that the relationshio of landlord and tenant under the 
Abolition Act ceased on July I, 1960, that if a tenant prior to that date. 
•urrendered possession and the inamdar had accepted such surrender and 
remained in possession, he would be entitled to the grant of occupancy 
'
!04 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 2 s.c.R. 
rights but that i[ the tenant claimed to be in possession on that da.te the 
Gove;nment \Vould have to ascertain who was in· lawful possession on 
July !, J 960 for the purprn;e of grant of occupancy rights. But these deci-
sions do not deal with the effect of the absolute vesting m the State under 
s. 3 of the Abolition Act of a,'l rights and interests with respect to inam 
land with effect from July 20, !955, and the question whether the vesting 
could be sa.id to have become ineffectual by reason of the mere conti-
nuation of the relationship of landlord and tenant up to July I, 1960. 
Therefore the order of the High Court should be set aside and th< 
case remiited to it for re-decision after considering the distinction pointed 
out in Dattaraya Sadashiv's case and in the light of .the decision o'f thi'i 
Court in Laxman Ambali's case. [109H; !IOA-D; 113B] 
(3) The finding of the Tribunal that occupancy rights 
had 
been 
conferred under the Abolition Act on the respondents has also io be 
considered by the High Court. [112E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1060 of 
1967. 
A 
B 
c 
Appeal by special leave from the judglllent and order dated 
September l 4. 1966 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 926 
of 1965. 
D 
W. S. //ar/ingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. 
R

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