Case Note & Summary
The matter involved two writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad challenging orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad dated 24.09.2018 in Case No.17/B/2016/Ahmednagar and Case No.16/B/2016/Ahmednagar. The petitioners were tenants or legal heirs of tenants, and respondent no.1 was the landlord; respondents 2 and 3 were the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar. The writ petitions arose from proceedings under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The lands were leased by registered lease deeds dated 16.09.1967 for a period of 16 years at an annual rent of Rs.60 for cultivation of sugarcane. The landlord alleged that the tenants stopped cultivating the land personally since 2001 and issued a notice dated 17.12.2005 under Section 14(1)(a)(iv) of the Act determining the tenancy. The tenants denied the allegations. The landlord thereafter filed an application under Section 29 of the Act before the Tahsildar for possession. The Tahsildar dismissed the application on 08.03.2011. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the landlord's appeal and directed the tenants to handover possession. The tenants preferred revisions before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which dismissed the revisions on 24.09.2018. Hence, the tenants filed the present writ petitions challenging the Tribunal's orders. The core legal issues were whether the tenancy could be terminated for non-cultivation, whether the Government Notification dated 14.02.1958 under Section 43-A applied and required one-year notice, whether the application under Section 29(2) was barred by limitation, and whether the notice and application complied with statutory requirements. The tenants argued that they could not cultivate the land due to lack of water and that the land was situated out of town; the failure was not deliberate and the landlord failed to provide water. They also contended that the notice was barred by limitation, the notification prevented termination on expiry of the lease period, and the application was not in the prescribed form. The landlord argued that Section 43-A(1) did not apply to sugarcane lease; the lease was for a specific object and terminable by notice; the notification sub-clause (4) covered the case; and the application was within limitation. The Court considered the lease terms, which required the tenants to lift water for sugarcane, and observed that the notice under Section 14(1)(a)(iv) was in compliance with sub-clause (b) and the tenants did not show that they remedied the breach within three months. It discussed limitation aspects with reference to Dattu Nikam, Ganpati Appa, and Gajanan Vasant, noting that the right to obtain possession accrues on expiry of the notice period. The Court also referred to the Government Notification dated 14.02.1958, particularly sub-clause (3), which provides that the lease may be terminated by giving three months notice for defaults mentioned in Section 14(1)(a). The provided judgment excerpt ends before the final operative conclusion; therefore, the final decision is not available in the text.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Termination of Tenancy - Grounds for Termination - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 14(1)(a)(iv), 29 - Landlord issued three months notice dated 17.12.2005 on ground tenants failed to cultivate land personally since 2001; tenants denied but no evidence of remedying breach within notice period - Held that notice was in compliance with sub-clause (b) and tenants did not establish cultivation after 2001 (Paras 9-10). B) Limitation - Application for Possession - Period of Limitation - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 29(2) - Petitioners argued right accrued in 2001 and application in 2007 barred by limitation; landlord argued right accrues after expiry of three months notice - Court referred to Dattu Nikam and Ganpati Appa and observed right to obtain possession accrues on expiry of notice period (Paras 11-12). C) Applicability of Government Notification - Sugarcane Lease - Termination Procedure - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 43-A and Notification dated 14.02.1958 - Petitioners contended notification required one-year notice and conditions under Sections 31A to 31D; landlord argued sub-clause (3) allows three months notice for defaults under Section 14(1)(a) - Court noted sub-clause (3) provides termination for defaults under Section 14(1)(a) with three months notice and right not disturbed (Paras 13-14). D) Evidence - Non-cultivation - Water Shortage - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 14, 29 - Petitioners argued lack of water and no deliberate failure; landlord argued lease terms required lessee to lift water for sugarcane - Court noted lease terms required tenants to make watering arrangement and tenants failed to show remedying breach (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenancy of land leased for sugarcane cultivation could be terminated under Section 14(1)(a)(iv) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; whether the Government Notification dated 14.02.1958 issued under Section 43-A of the Act applied and required one-year notice; whether the landlord's application under Section 29(2) of the Act was barred by limitation; whether the termination notice and application complied with prescribed statutory requirements.
Law Points
- Section 14(1)(a)(iv) of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 requires three months notice and tenant must remedy breach within that period
- Section 29(2) application for possession must be filed within two years from date right to obtain possession accrues
- right to obtain possession accrues on expiry of termination notice period
- Government Notification dated 14.02.1958 under Section 43-A(3) permits termination of sugarcane lease for defaults under Section 14(1)(a) with three months notice
- limitation for Section 29(2) application begins after expiry of three months notice
- not from date of alleged default
