Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original applicants in Tenancy Case No. 108 of 1984, sought a declaration of tenancy under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before the Additional Tahasildar and ALT, South Solapur. They had earlier filed a similar application in 1973 which was withdrawn unconditionally. There were also proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. where the Magistrate held that the respondent landlords were entitled to physical possession, and a civil suit where the petitioners failed to prove possession. In the tenancy case, the petitioners examined themselves and two witnesses but did not produce any documentary evidence such as a tenancy agreement or rent receipts. In cross-examination, they admitted that no rent receipts were available and that the earlier application was withdrawn. The Additional Tahasildar and ALT allowed the application solely on the ground that the respondents did not examine themselves. The respondents appealed to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which set aside the order and remanded the matter. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition. The High Court held that the Additional Tahasildar and ALT erred in placing the burden on the respondents. The burden of proof was on the petitioners to establish their tenancy, and they failed to discharge it. The admission of withdrawal of the earlier application and the absence of any documentary evidence were fatal to their claim. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Declaration of Tenancy - Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Burden of Proof - The petitioners claimed tenancy but failed to produce any documentary evidence such as a tenancy agreement or rent receipts. They admitted in cross-examination that no rent receipts were available and that an earlier similar application under Section 70(b) was unconditionally withdrawn. The Additional Tahasildar and ALT allowed the application solely on the ground that the respondents did not examine themselves, which was held to be erroneous. The appellate authority and the High Court held that the burden of proof was on the petitioners and they failed to discharge it. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners were entitled to be declared as tenants under Section 70(b) of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948 based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The court held that the Additional Tahasildar and ALT erred in placing the burden on the respondents and that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on person claiming tenancy
- Admission of withdrawal of earlier application weakens claim
- Absence of documentary evidence like rent receipts or tenancy agreement fatal to tenancy claim
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 24
Writ Petition No. 3856 of 1988
Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for Petitioners, Mr. Akshay Shinde i/b. Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos. 1(C to I) and 2(A to C)
Rajaram Hiralal Bhoi (since deceased through L.Rs) and Manik Tatyaba Madkar (since deceased through L.Rs)
Chintaman Waman Sathe (since deceased through L.Rs) and Mukund Raghunath Sathe (since deceased through L.Rs)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which set aside the declaration of tenancy granted by the Additional Tahasildar and ALT.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and restore the order of the Additional Tahasildar and ALT declaring them as tenants.
Filing Reason
The Additional Tahasildar and ALT had declared the petitioners as tenants under Section 70(b) of the B.T. & A.L. Act, but the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside that order on appeal by the respondents.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Tahasildar and ALT allowed Tenancy Case No. 108 of 1984 on 28/6/1984 declaring petitioners as tenants. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside that order and remanded the matter.
Issues
Whether the Additional Tahasildar and ALT erred in placing the burden of proof on the respondents instead of the petitioners.
Whether the petitioners had discharged the burden of proving their tenancy in the absence of documentary evidence and in light of the admission of withdrawal of an earlier application.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Additional Tahasildar and ALT correctly declared them as tenants and the Tribunal erred in setting aside that order.
Respondents argued that the petitioners failed to prove their tenancy as they produced no documentary evidence and admitted withdrawal of an earlier application.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof in a tenancy declaration case lies on the person claiming tenancy. The petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence such as a tenancy agreement or rent receipts, and their admission of unconditional withdrawal of an earlier application under Section 70(b) weakened their claim. Therefore, the order of the Additional Tahasildar and ALT was erroneous and the Tribunal correctly set it aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The only reason given by the A.L.T. is to be found as under :
In the cross examination the Petitioners admitted that no rent receipts were available with them.
They also admitted that earlier application under section 70(b) was unconditionally withdrawn.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Tenancy Case No. 108 of 1984 under Section 70(b) of B.T. & A.L. Act before Additional Tahasildar and ALT, South Solapur. The ALT allowed the application on 28/6/1984. Respondents appealed to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which set aside the order and remanded the matter. Petitioners then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 70(b)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 145
