Case Note & Summary
By special leave, the Supreme Court considered two appeals arising from a tenancy dispute under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The original landholder Badridas son of Ramgopal owned fields Survey Nos. 2 and 9/2 in village Bhamberi, district Akola, and leased them to brothers Kishan and Manik on 26 February 1958 for cultivation. At the end of the agricultural year 1958-59, Badridas took back possession of the lands, stating that he intended to cultivate them personally, and he cultivated them during the next two agricultural years. Subsequently, on 18 January 1961, Badridas leased the lands to Bhagwant son of Pundalik for four years. Kishan and Manik then applied on 30 June 1961 under Section 36(1) of the Act, contending that their eviction was illegal and seeking restoration of possession. The Additional Tahsildar dismissed the application, but the appellate authority reversed that order, holding that the original tenants had been evicted contrary to law. The Revenue Tribunal, however, set aside the appellate authority's decision, reasoning that the tenants' voluntary surrender and the subsequent letting to Bhagwant precluded restoration. The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, in two Special Civil Applications, quashed the Revenue Tribunal's order and directed restoration of possession to Kishan and Manik. Bhagwant appealed to the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether a landlord's possession obtained from a tenant without a written surrender verified before the Tahsildar and without an order of the Tahsildar was lawful under Sections 20 and 36(2) of the Act, and whether a tenant's voluntary delivery of possession could validate it. The appellant argued that the absence of a non obstante clause in Section 36(2), unlike Section 19, indicated that only tenants dispossessed by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation were protected, not those who voluntarily parted with possession. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Section 20 expressly required surrender to be in writing and verified before the Tahsildar in the prescribed manner, and that a surrender not complying with these requirements was ineffective. It further held that Section 36(2) imposed an absolute prohibition on a landlord obtaining possession except under an order of the Tahsildar, and its explicit terms could not be diluted by implication. The Court relied on Madhao s/o Tatya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which held that Section 36(2) is plenary and controls Section 20. Accordingly, the possession obtained by Badridas was unlawful because he failed to comply with Sections 20 and 36(2), and the tenants were entitled to apply for restoration under Section 36(1). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's direction for restoration. Since standing crops were on the lands, the appellant was given one month from the date of judgment to deliver possession, and no order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Surrender of Tenancy - Validity of Surrender - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, Section 20 - The original tenants allegedly surrendered lands to landlord at end of agricultural year 1958-59, but surrender was neither in writing nor verified before the Tahsildar as required by Section 20. The Court examined Section 20 and held that a surrender which does not comply with its requirements is ineffective, making the landlord's subsequent possession unlawful. Held that written surrender and verification before Tahsildar are mandatory conditions for valid termination of tenancy by surrender (Paras 658-660). B) Tenancy Law - Landlord's Right to Possession - Unlawful Possession Without Tahsildar Order - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, Section 36(2) and Section 36(1) - Landlord took possession from tenants without obtaining an order of the Tahsildar, contrary to Section 36(2), even though tenants delivered possession voluntarily. The Court held that Section 36(2) imposes an absolute disability on landlords and is not subject to any implication that possession obtained with tenant's consent is valid. It further held that a tenant evicted in contravention of Section 36(2) is entitled to apply for restoration under Section 36(1). Held that landlord's possession was unlawful and tenants were entitled to restoration (Paras 659-661). C) Tenancy Law - Interpretation of Section 36(2) vis-à-vis Section 19 - Plenary Nature of Section 36(2) - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, Sections 19, 20, 36(2) - Appellant contended that absence of non obstante clause in Section 36(2), unlike Section 19, implies only tenants dispossessed by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation are protected. Court rejected the contention, holding that Section 20 expressly requires written and verified surrender, and Section 36(2) is plenary and controls Section 20. The Court relied on Madhao s/o Tatya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal & Ors., Special Civil Application No. 206/1967. Held that the absence of non obstante clause does not dilute Section 36(2) (Paras 659-660).
Issue of Consideration
Whether possession obtained by a landlord from a tenant without a written surrender verified before the Tahsildar and without an order of the Tahsildar under Sections 20 and 36(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 is lawful, and whether a tenant who voluntarily delivered possession can claim restoration under Section 36(1).
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; High Court order for restoration of possession to original tenants Kishan and Manik affirmed; appellant Bhagwant given one month from date of judgment to deliver possession due to standing crops; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Surrender under Section 20 must be in writing and verified before Tahsildar
- Section 36(2) prohibits landlord from obtaining possession except under order of Tahsildar
- voluntary delivery of possession by tenant does not render landlord possession valid
- Section 36(2) is plenary and controls Section 20
- tenant evicted in contravention of Section 36(2) may apply for restoration under Section 36(1).
