Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by the petitioners, who are tenants or successors of tenants of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 1163 admeasuring 1 Hector 82 Ares situated at Village Sidhnerli, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur. The respondent No. 1 is the landlord claiming ownership through a Will dated 17.11.1956 and an adoption deed dated 02.09.1960 executed by Smt. Ramabai Narsinh @ Balabhat Joshi, who was the owner on the tillers' day (01.04.1957) and was a widow. The petitioners challenged the concurrent orders passed by the Additional Tehsildar and ALT, Kagal in TNC Case No. ALT/Sidhnerli dated 31.01.1991, the Sub Divisional Officer, Karveer Division, Kolhapur in Tenancy Appeal No. 54 of 1991 dated 02.08.1993, and the Designated Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp Kolhapur in Revision Application No. MRT-KP-118/93 dated 24.11.2000. All three authorities held that the tenant had voluntarily surrendered the tenancy and that the landlord being a widow was entitled to protection under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, thus the tenant was not entitled to deemed purchase under Section 32. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to quash these orders and direct a proper inquiry under Section 43-A of the Act. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The court held that Section 43-A inquiry is not mandatory when the surrender is voluntary, and the landlord being a widow on the tillers' day was protected under Section 31. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Voluntary Surrender - Section 43-A Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The court held that where a tenant voluntarily surrenders tenancy, the provisions of Section 43-A for inquiry into surrender are not mandatory and the surrender is valid. The concurrent findings of the ALT, SDO, and MRT that the tenant voluntarily surrendered were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 2-4)
B) Tenancy Law - Widow Landlord Protection - Section 31 Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The court held that the landlord being a widow on the tillers' day (01.04.1957) was entitled to protection under Section 31, and the tenant's claim of deemed purchase under Section 32 was not applicable. The concurrent findings on this issue were upheld. (Paras 3-4)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that in the absence of any perversity or jurisdictional error, the High Court would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a writ petition. The petition was dismissed. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the tenant voluntarily surrendered the tenancy and that the landlord was a widow entitled to protection under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy Act are perverse or warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders of the ALT, SDO, and MRT. The court held that the findings of voluntary surrender and the landlord's status as a widow were based on evidence and not perverse, and no interference under Article 226 was warranted.
Law Points
- Voluntary surrender of tenancy
- Section 43-A Bombay Tenancy Act
- Widow landlord protection
- Concurrent findings
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 196
WRIT PETITION NO. 1800 OF 2001
Mr. N.J. Patil for Petitioners, Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir for Respondent No. 1
Dattu Raghu Patil (since deceased) by heirs Dwarkabai Dattu Patil & Ors.
Anant Narsinh @ Balambhatt Joshi (since deceased) by heirs Padmaja Anant Joshi & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent orders in tenancy proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Designated Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp Kolhapur, and to direct the authorities to hold a proper inquiry under Section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
Filing Reason
Petitioners, as tenants/successors of tenants, challenged the concurrent findings that they had voluntarily surrendered the tenancy and that the landlord was a widow entitled to protection under Section 31, thereby disentitling them to deemed purchase under Section 32.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Tehsildar and ALT, Kagal passed order dated 31.01.1991; the Sub Divisional Officer, Karveer Division, Kolhapur passed order dated 02.08.1993 in Tenancy Appeal No. 54 of 1991; and the Designated Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp Kolhapur passed order dated 24.11.2000 in Revision Application No. MRT-KP-118/93, all concurrent against the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the tenant voluntarily surrendered the tenancy are perverse or warrant interference under Article 226?
Whether the landlord being a widow on the tillers' day is entitled to protection under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, thereby excluding the tenant's claim of deemed purchase under Section 32?
Whether the failure to hold an inquiry under Section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act renders the surrender invalid?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the surrender was not voluntary and that a proper inquiry under Section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act was required.
Respondents argued that the surrender was voluntary and that the landlord being a widow was protected under Section 31, and the concurrent findings were based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi is that where a tenant voluntarily surrenders tenancy, the provisions of Section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act for an inquiry are not mandatory, and the surrender is valid. Additionally, a landlord who is a widow on the tillers' day is entitled to protection under Section 31, and the tenant cannot claim deemed purchase under Section 32. Concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities will not be interfered with under Article 226 unless perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Admittedly all three orders, passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (for short “ALT”), Sub Divisional Officer (for short “SDO”) and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short “MRT”) are concurrent orders passed against Petitioners.
Petitioners are tenants / successors of the tenants in respect suit property namely agricultural land bearing Gat No. 1163 admeasuring 1 Hector 82 Ares and situated at Village Sidhnerli, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur.
Respondent No. 1 is landlord claiming ownership of the said property by virtue of Will and adoption deed of Smt. Ramabai Narsinh @ Balabhat Joshi.
On 01.04.1957 i.e tillers day, Smt. Ramabai was the owner of the said land. Admittedly she was a widow.
Procedural History
The matter originated as a tenancy case before the Additional Tehsildar and ALT, Kagal, who passed an order on 31.01.1991. The petitioners appealed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Karveer Division, Kolhapur, who dismissed the appeal on 02.08.1993 in Tenancy Appeal No. 54 of 1991. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp Kolhapur, which was dismissed on 24.11.2000 in Revision Application No. MRT-KP-118/93. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 31, Section 32, Section 43-A
- Constitution of India: Article 226
