Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of rent (RCS No. 97 of 1978), challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dated 29 September 2001, which remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh enquiry. The dispute arose from a reference by the Civil Court to the Tenancy Court to determine the reasonable rent of the suit land under Section 43B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, Panhala, by judgment dated 30 October 1982, fixed the reasonable rent at Rs. 600/- per annum for the year 1975-76. The appeal filed by the respondents before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Shahuwadi, was dismissed on 29 January 1988. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision before the MRT, which set aside the concurrent findings and remanded the matter. The petitioners contended that the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Act, as it did not find the evidence insufficient or that any party was denied an opportunity to lead evidence. The respondents argued that the Mamlatdar and SDO had wrongly applied Section 43B and that the evidence was insufficient. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that under Section 76, the MRT cannot remand unless it concludes that the evidence on record is insufficient or that a party was denied an opportunity to lead evidence. The MRT must decide the revision on its own merits after independent appreciation of evidence. The impugned order of remand was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the MRT for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Remand - The MRT set aside concurrent findings of the Tenancy Awal Karkun and the Sub-Divisional Officer on reasonable rent and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. The High Court held that under Section 76, the MRT cannot remand unless it finds that the evidence on record is insufficient or that a party was denied an opportunity to lead evidence. The MRT must decide the revision on merits after independent appreciation of evidence. (Paras 5-7) B) Tenancy Law - Reasonable Rent - Section 43B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Jurisdiction of Mamlatdar - The issue of reasonable rent was referred to the Mamlatdar under Section 70(ma) of the Act. The Tenancy Awal Karkun determined the rent at Rs. 600/- per annum for 1975-76, which was upheld by the SDO. The MRT's remand was set aside as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 76. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) acted within its jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh enquiry without first determining that the evidence on record was insufficient or that a party was denied an opportunity to lead evidence.
Final Decision
The impugned order of the MRT dated 29/9/2001 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the MRT for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a direction to decide the revision on its own merits after independent appreciation of evidence.
Law Points
- Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 limits the revisional power of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- remand is not permissible unless evidence is insufficient or opportunity to lead evidence was denied
- the Tribunal must decide the revision on merits after independent appreciation of evidence.
