Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the original tenant Namdev Jadhav, challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dated 9th February 2021, which allowed the revision application of respondent Nos.1a to 1e and declared them as tenants of the agricultural land bearing Gat No. 123. The Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) and the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) had earlier held that respondent Nos.1a to 1e were not tenants. The MRT reversed these concurrent findings, holding that the respondents were tenants based on evidence of cultivation and payment of rent. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and found that the MRT had correctly interfered because the lower authorities had ignored material evidence. The court upheld the MRT order, restoring the tenancy rights of the legal heirs. The court also noted that the tenancy rights are heritable under Section 40 of the Act, and the respondents had been in continuous possession and had paid rent. The petition was dismissed, and the MRT order was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Legal Heirs - Section 40 Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The court considered whether the legal heirs of a deceased tenant are entitled to be declared as tenants. The court held that the MRT's finding that respondent Nos.1a to 1e were tenants was based on evidence of cultivation and payment of rent, and the concurrent findings of the ALT and SDO were not perverse. The court upheld the MRT order, restoring the tenancy rights of the legal heirs. (Paras 1-25)
B) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction of MRT - Section 76 Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the MRT. It held that the MRT can interfere with concurrent findings if they are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the MRT correctly found that the lower authorities had ignored material evidence, and thus the revision was maintainable. (Paras 10-15)
C) Tenancy Law - Perpetual Tenancy - Section 40 Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The court clarified that a tenant who has been in continuous possession and has paid rent acquires a perpetual tenancy right, which can be inherited by legal heirs. The court relied on the principle that tenancy rights are heritable under the Act. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the legal heirs of the original tenant are entitled to be declared as tenants under Section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and whether the MRT erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 9th February 2021, thereby confirming that respondent Nos.1a to 1e are the tenants of the agricultural land.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- Legal heirs
- Section 40 Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Jurisdiction of MRT
- Concurrent findings
- Perpetual tenancy
- Cultivation evidence
- Rent receipts
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 109
WRIT PETITION NO. 1789 OF 2022
Mr. Sandesh Patil, i/b Ms. Divya Pawar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Pratik Rahade, i/b Mr. P. N. Joshi, for Respondent Nos.1(b) to 1(e). Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for the State/Respondent No.3.
Gitabai Namdev Jadhav (Kumbhar) and others
Kisan Tulsiram Aware (deceased) through LRs and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which declared respondent Nos.1a to 1e as tenants of agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the MRT order and restore the orders of the ALT and SDO which held that respondent Nos.1a to 1e were not tenants.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original tenant, were aggrieved by the MRT order reversing the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and declaring respondent Nos.1a to 1e as tenants.
Previous Decisions
The ALT and Tahsildar, Igatpuri, by order dated 23rd March 2015, held that respondent Nos.1a to 1e were not tenants. The SDO, Igatpuri, by order dated 8th June 2017, affirmed the ALT order. The MRT, by order dated 9th February 2021, allowed the revision and set aside the orders of the ALT and SDO, holding that respondent Nos.1a to 1e were tenants.
Issues
Whether the MRT had jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the ALT and SDO.
Whether respondent Nos.1a to 1e are entitled to be declared as tenants under Section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reversing concurrent findings without any perversity.
The respondents argued that the lower authorities had ignored material evidence of cultivation and payment of rent, and the MRT correctly interfered.
Ratio Decidendi
The legal heirs of a deceased tenant are entitled to be declared as tenants under Section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, provided they have been in continuous possession and have paid rent. The MRT can interfere with concurrent findings if they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners take exception to a judgment and order dated 9th February, 2021 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Tenancy Revision – NSK No.193 of 2017.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT”) thus held that respondent Nos.1a to 1e were the tenants of the agricultural land bearing Gat No. 123.
Procedural History
The ALT and Tahsildar, Igatpuri, passed an order on 23rd March 2015 holding that respondent Nos.1a to 1e were not tenants. The SDO, Igatpuri, in Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 2015, affirmed that order on 8th June 2017. The respondents then filed a revision before the MRT, which was allowed on 9th February 2021, setting aside the orders of the ALT and SDO and declaring the respondents as tenants. The petitioners challenged this MRT order by filing the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 40, Section 76
