LexVALLABHAI NATHABHAI versus BAI JIVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ·C D E F ·G H V ALLABHAI NA TIIABHAI v. BAI JIVI & ORS. January 10, 1969 109 [J. M. SHBLAT, V. BHAROAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JI.) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 51 of 1948, ••· 29(1) and 8.~Nature of remedies under-Remedies whether alternative. Reapondent No. I waa owner of two ~ numben situate in the Dilltriet of Panchmahals in Gujarst to which the Bombay Tenancy and Aaricultural Lands Act 57 of 1948 was applicable. On May IS, 1956 the appellant voluntarily handed over possession of the said lands to respondent 1. The surrender was not, however, in writing and the procedure of inquiry and vorillcation required by 1. 1$ of the aforesaid Aet was not gone through. Respondent 1 thereafter personally cultivated the said lands. On January 16, 1961 the appellant applied to the Deputy Collector under s. 84 of the Act for summary eviction of respondent 1. The Deputy Colleetor dismissed the application holding that the tenant's remedy 1ay under s. 29(1) of the Aet. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, however, in a revision by the tenant held that s. 84 and not s. 29(1) applied. The High Court in a petition under s. 227 of the Constitution set aside the Tribunal's order holding that s. 84 did not apply. In appeal, by special leave, the question was as to the nature of the remedies under ss. 29(1) and 84 and whether a tenant who had remedy under&. 29(1) could stilt apply to the Collector under s. 84. HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. (i) In the case of a surrender which is not valid and binding on the tenant there is no termination of tenancy, and thei'efore, the landlord is DOI entitled to retain the land even though possesoion thereof has been handed over to him or has been voluntarily taken by him. The Jl""ilion in such a case is that the tenant has a right to apply to the Mamlatdar for restoration of possession to him claiming that there has been no ter- mination of tenancy, that his possession continues to be protected by the provisions of the Aqt and that therefore, the possession should be restored to him. Such an application lies under s. 29(1) and, when so made, it becomes the duty of the Mamlatdar .under s. 70, ·ct. (o) read with s. 29 ( 1) to put the tenant in possession of tho land in question "under the Aet". In such a case the tenant is claiming possession unde'r the provision• of the Act and not on the strength of his own title as when he applies for possession ai:ainst a trespasser. [314 E-0] . (ii) The words "any person unauthorisedly occupying or wl"ongfully tn possession of any land" in s. 84, no doubt, are words of wide import and would include a landlord who is in unauthorised occupation or is wrongfully in possession. But then s. 84 in express terms limits its application to three types of cases only, namely, of a person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of the land (a) the transfer or acl!uisition of which etc. is invalid under the Act, or (b) the mana~ment of which has been assumed under the Aet, cir ( c) to the use and occupa- tion of which he is not entitled under the provisions of the Act and the said provisions do not provide for the eviction of such person. [314 H-315B] In the present case cl. (b) obviously could not apply as the land in question was not one, the management of which was assumed under the provisions of the Act. Clause (a) applies only to transfers or acquisitions 310 SUPREME COURJ: REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R .. which are in breaq]J of the provisions of Ch. y and possession or occupa- t!OD whereof h£l:S been obtained under such invalid transfers and acquisi- tions. That bemg the position, the instant case would fall only under cl. ( c) . and therefore the condition that s. 84 would only apply to cases for which there is no other remedy under any of . the provisions of the ~C! must apply to the present case, This Condition shows that while g1v1og drastic powers of summary eviction to ·an administrative officer the legislature was careful to restrict this power, firstly because the result otherwise would he to deprive the person evicted under s. 84 of his re- medy of appeal before the Collector .which !>e would have if the order we're to be passed under s. 29(1) and secondly, b~ause it would enable a tenant to by-pass a judicial enquiry by the Mamlatdar under s. 29(1) by directly applying to the Collector under s. 84. Such a result could not have been intended by the legisl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.