Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, between a protected tenant's heirs and the landlord over agricultural lands in Maharashtra. The landlord sought possession alleging that the tenant had committed defaults in payment of rent for three consecutive years, 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, thereby attracting Section 25(2), which bars relief from forfeiture. The case was governed by the Act as it stood before the amendment of August 1, 1956. Facts: The annual rent agreed between the parties was Rs.850, but under a government notification issued under Section 6, the maximum rent chargeable was Rs.685/5/-. For 1952-53, the tenant paid Rs.850, but credit for the excess Rs.164/11/- was adjusted towards 1953-54 rent. For 1953-54 he paid Rs.350, for 1954-55 he paid nothing, and for 1955-56 he made a part payment of Rs.531/1/- after the expiry of the period specified in Section 14. The balance of arrears for the three years was Rs.1010/3/-. The Extra Aval Karkun initially determined the rent as Rs.685/5/- per annum and granted the tenant three months' time to pay arrears under Section 25(1), but this was later reversed in subsequent proceedings. Legal Issues: The central question was whether a tenant could be said not to have failed for any three years to pay rent within the meaning of Section 25(2) when part payments made the total arrears not exceeding two years' rent. A related issue was the correctness and finality of the rent determination under Section 7. Arguments: The appellants argued that the agreed rent was Rs.500 per annum and that they had been paying rent regularly, and that Section 25(2) required aggregate arrears to exceed two years' rent based on Vithal Vasudeo Kulkarni. The respondents maintained that the rent was Rs.685/5/- and that any partial failure for three years triggered Section 25(2), relying on the plain language and Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court, speaking through Sarkaria J., held that the language of Section 25(2) was unambiguous and must be given its ordinary meaning. 'Failure' and 'default' were synonymous; a partial failure to pay the whole rent due for a year was a failure, especially if part payment was made beyond the specified period. The Court clarified that the observations in Vithal did not require aggregate arrears to exceed two years' rent. It confirmed that the rent fixed between the parties was Rs.685/5/- as found by the Aval Karkun, and that finding had become final because the tenant did not appeal. The Court followed Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype and explained Vithal. Decision: Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders directing delivery of possession to the landlord, holding that the tenant had failed for three years and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture under Section 25(1).
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 25(2), Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Interpretation of 'failure' for any three years - The subsection bars relief from forfeiture if tenant has failed for any three years to pay rent within the period specified in Section 14; failure may be partial or total, and part payment after expiry of period constitutes default. The tenant defaulted for 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, with balance arrears of Rs.1010/3/-, and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture. Held that the language of Section 25(2) is unambiguous and plain, and partial defaults in three years attract the provision even if aggregate arrears are less than two years' rent. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Tenancy Law - Determination of Rent - Sections 6 and 7, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Rent payable is agreed rent subject to maximum rate fixed under Section 6; a finding by the competent authority on agreed rent becomes final if not appealed. The Extra Aval Karkun determined the rent fixed between parties as Rs.685/5/- per annum after scaling down agreed rent of Rs.850 in view of government notification, and the tenant did not appeal against this determination. Held that the rent was Rs.685/5/- and the tenant's contention of Rs.500 was rejected. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Precedent - Interpretation of Section 25(2) - Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype v. Aba Maruti Mali, [1962] Supp. 1 SCR 739 followed; Vithal Vasudeo Kulkarni v. Maruti Rama Nagane, [1968] 1 SCR 541 explained - The Court clarified that aggregate arrears need not exceed two years' rent; each year's failure independently triggers Section 25(2). Held that observations in Vithal did not lay down a rule requiring aggregate arrears to exceed two years' rent, and partial defaults in three years suffice to attract Section 25(2). (Paras Not mentioned) D) Relief Against Forfeiture - Sections 25(1) and 25(2), Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 25(1) allows tenant to pay arrears within 15 days to avoid ejectment, but Section 25(2) excludes tenants who have failed for any three years. Since the tenant had three years of defaults, the Mamlatdar had no discretion to grant relief, and the landlord was entitled to possession. Held that the appeal was dismissed and the orders directing delivery of possession were upheld. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a tenant can be said not to have failed for any three years to pay rent within the meaning of Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, when as a result of part payments made by him, total amount of arrears do not exceed rent equivalent to two years.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1971 and confirmed the High Court's order and the Tribunal's direction for delivery of possession of the suit land to the landlord. It held that the tenant failed to pay rent for the three years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 within the meaning of Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and hence was not entitled to relief from forfeiture. Partial payment of rent, even if resulting in total arrears below two years' rent, does not negate the failure. The Court also held that the agreed rent was Rs.685/5/- per annum as determined by the Aval Karkun, which had become final.
Law Points
- Under Section 7 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- rent payable is agreed rent subject to maximum rate fixed under Section 6
- Section 25(2) as stood before 1956 provides no discretion to grant relief from forfeiture if tenant failed for any three years to pay rent within period specified in Section 14
- 'failure' and 'default' are synonymous and include partial default or failure to pay whole rent due for year
- the language of Section 25(2) is unambiguous and must be given its plain ordinary meaning
- Section 26 creates presumption that payment is on account of rent due for the year in which payment is made
- Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype v. Aba Maruti Mali followed and Vithal Vasudeo Kulkarni v. Maruti Rama Nagane explained
