Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between a landlord and a tenant over agricultural land governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The tenant originally held cultivating possession of 4 acres and 38 guntas of land under the landlord. In 1954, on an application moved by the landlord under Section 31 of the Act for termination of tenancy for personal cultivation, the Tenancy Awal Karkun at Kopargaon passed an order based on a compromise between the parties. Under that compromise, the tenant surrendered 3 acres to the landlord and was left with 1 acre and 38 guntas, less than half the original holding. Later, the land was conceded to be sugarcane land, and at that time tenants of sugarcane lands were not evictable. Subsequently, a notification permitted eviction of tenants of sugarcane lands, provided such eviction did not clash with Sections 31C and 31D of the Act. Section 31C provides that the tenancy of any land left with the tenant after termination of tenancy under Section 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide required that land for personal cultivation. Section 31D deals with apportionment of rent when part of the land is left with the tenant. Promoted by this notification, the landlord moved again to seek the land left with the tenant for bona fide personal cultivation, claiming that his family members had increased. The tenant resisted by invoking the bar under Section 31C. Two lower revenue courts accepted the tenant's defence and decided in his favour. However, the Land Tribunal in revision at the instance of the landlord upset those orders, and the High Court in a writ petition confirmed the Land Tribunal's view. The ground on which the Land Tribunal and the High Court rejected the tenant's defence was that the earlier order dated 3.5.1954 was not an order under Section 31 but merely a consent or compromise order, and therefore not an order of the kind envisaged under Section 31C so as to erect a bar. The Supreme Court examined this view. It observed that Section 31 provides the procedure for termination of tenancy for personal cultivation and for non-agricultural use, and when read with Section 31C, the provision appears to be a one-time measure. The Court held that the proceedings under Section 31 were resorted to by the landlord, and a decision was made thereon, even if not on contest but with consent of the parties, to which the authority hearing the matter put its seal of approval. No one could say that the said order was not an order in purported exercise of the powers and functions of the authority under Section 31. Having had a larger share of the cake, it did not lie in the mouth of the landlord to complain that those proceedings were no proceedings at all in terms of Section 31. Merely because the authority did not record an order after contest could be no ground to denude the power exercised by the authority in that behalf. The Court thus held that Section 31C was an obvious bar to a second attempt to end the tenancy, and the fact that the landlord bona fide required the land due to increased family members was of no consequence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court as also that of the Land Tribunal, and restored the orders of the authorities under the Act passed at the two stages, initial as well as secondary. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Termination of Tenancy for Personal Cultivation - Consent/Compromise Order under Section 31 Constitutes an Order Attracting Section 31C Bar - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 31, 31C, 31D - The landlord first obtained possession of 3 acres from tenant under a compromise order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun under Section 31, leaving 1 acre 38 guntas with tenant. Later landlord sought eviction again claiming bona fide personal cultivation due to increased family members; tenant pleaded Section 31C bar. High Court held compromise order was not an order under Section 31; Supreme Court reversed, holding that an order passed on consent to which the Authority put seal of approval is an order in purported exercise of Section 31 powers; Section 31 read with 31C is a one-time measure; Held appeal allowed, High Court and Land Tribunal orders set aside, revenue authorities' orders restored (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a compromise/consent order under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 constitutes an order under Section 31 so as to attract the bar under Section 31C against a second termination of tenancy for personal cultivation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of High Court set aside; Land Tribunal order set aside; orders of authorities under the Act passed at the two stages (initial and secondary) restored; no costs.
Law Points
- A consent/compromise order under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 is an order in purported exercise of powers of the Authority
- it triggers the bar under Section 31C
- Section 31 read with 31C is a one-time measure
- bona fide requirement due to increased family members cannot overcome the statutory bar
- appellate court restores revenue authorities' orders
