Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 24/2A and 24/2B, originally leased by the landlord’s predecessor to the tenant’s predecessor on 5 May 1943 for sugarcane cultivation. Rent was fixed at Rs. 950 per year in 1964. In 1973, the landlord filed Tenancy Case No. 8 of 1973 before the Tahsildar, Phaltan, seeking possession on grounds of arrears of rent for 1969‑70 to 1971‑72 and sub‑division of the land. That case was dismissed and the dismissal was confirmed in appeal, but the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the landlord’s revision and remanded the matter in 1976. On 3 June 1984, the landlord filed a fresh application before the Tahsildar craving possession on three grounds: defaults in payment of rent for more than three years, subletting and sub‑division without permission, and bonafide personal cultivation. The Tahsildar, by order dated 4 March 1985, held that the tenant committed default for more than three years continuously from 1967‑68 to 1982‑83 and that the landlord required the land for bonafide cultivation; the ground of subletting was dismissed. The Sub‑Divisional Officer dismissed the tenant’s appeal on 30 September 1985, confirming the concurrent findings. However, in Revision Application No. 328 of 1985, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by order dated 27 January 1988, set aside both orders, holding that the landlord failed to prove his case under Section 25(2) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar with a direction that, on the tenant’s application, three months be granted to deposit the arrears of rent and costs, after which a suitable order under Section 25(1) was to be passed. The landlord filed Writ Petition No. 4492 of 1988 challenging that order. The tenant later filed Writ Petition No. 2523 of 1991 against the same order. Meanwhile, because the tenant failed to deposit the arrears as directed, the landlord filed Tenancy Case No. 15 of 1988, and on 30 September 1988 the Tahsildar directed the tenant to hand over possession. The tenant’s appeal was partly allowed and remanded by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on 25 January 1999, but the landlord’s revision was allowed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 18 April 1991, directing the Tahsildar to take steps to deliver possession. The tenant filed Writ Petition No. 2520 of 1991 against that order. Before the High Court, the landlord’s counsel argued that the tenant defaulted for more than three years, that the concurrent findings of fact should not have been disturbed, that the revisional court cannot interfere unless the findings are perverse, that the notice dated 24 February 1984 related to a new period from 1973‑74 to 1983‑84 for which no rent receipts were produced, and that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s observation that rent was refused by the landlord had no basis in the evidence. The tenant’s counsel commenced submissions (as recorded incompletely) arguing on behalf of the tenant. The High Court heard the matters and reserved judgment on 2 February 2023, with the pronouncement on 5 June 2023. The excerpted text does not contain the final decision of the court.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 25(2) Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The landlord filed an application seeking eviction of tenant on grounds of default in payment of rent for more than three years, subletting, and bonafide personal cultivation. The Tahsildar and Sub‑Divisional Officer found default for 15 years and allowed eviction, but the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside the concurrent findings, holding that the landlord failed to prove default under Section 25(2) and directed the tenant be given an opportunity to deposit arrears under Section 25(1) within three months. The landlord challenged the order arguing that no evidence of rent payment for the crucial period was produced. (Paras 6, 9) B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - It was contended that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re‑appreciating evidence and setting aside concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tahsildar and Sub‑Divisional Officer without recording a finding of perversity. The settled law is that the revisional court should not interfere unless the finding is one that no ordinary prudent person could have arrived at, which was not established. (Paras 9) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof in Rent Arrears - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 25(1), 25(2) - The landlord argued that the tenant failed to produce documentary evidence of payment of rent for the period 1973‑74 to 1983‑84 despite claiming to have rent receipts; the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s finding that rent was refused by the landlord was without basis in the depositions. The direction to deposit arrears within three months was not complied with, leading to subsequent proceedings for possession. (Paras 9, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact of the lower authorities on the issue of default in payment of rent, and whether the landlord made out a case for eviction under Section 25(2) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- default in payment of rent under Section 25(2)
- concurrent findings of fact
- revisional jurisdiction of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- perversity of findings
- burden of proof in rent arrears
