Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay heard a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) which had reversed concurrent findings of the tenancy authorities. The original plaintiff (respondent No.2) had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the predecessor of the petitioners was not a tenant of the suit land and for an injunction. The trial court referred the tenancy issue to the competent authority. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, by order dated 12 August 1991, held the predecessor to be a tenant cultivating the land since 1959-60. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal on 31 March 1993. The MRT, in revision, allowed the application on 10 October 2001, holding that tenancy was not proved due to lack of lease deed or rent receipts. The petitioners, heirs of the original defendant, challenged the MRT's order. They contended that the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and that lawful cultivation without falling in the excepted categories under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 conferred deemed tenancy. The respondents argued that the petitioners never exercised the right under Section 32G on the tillers' day and thus could not claim tenant status. The High Court, after analyzing Sections 2(18) and 4 of the Act and relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Dahya Lal v. Rasul Mahomed Abdul Rahim, held that a person lawfully cultivating land belonging to another, not being a family member, servant, or mortgagee, is a deemed tenant, regardless of the owner's consent. The Court found that the petitioners were neither family members nor servants nor mortgagees in possession and therefore qualified as deemed tenants. Consequently, the Court set aside the MRT's order and restored the orders of the tenancy authorities.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Deemed Tenant - Section 4, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Person lawfully cultivating land belonging to another, not being owner's family member, servant, or mortgagee, is deemed tenant, consent of owner not required - Reliance on Constitution Bench decision in Dahya Lal v. Rasul Mahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1964 SC 1230 - Held, petitioners, not falling in excepted categories, are deemed tenants (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in setting aside concurrent findings of tenancy and whether the petitioners qualify as deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the MRT order dated 10 October 2001, and restored the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tenancy Awal Karkun, holding that the petitioners are deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Law Points
- Person lawfully cultivating land belonging to another
- not being a member of the owner's family
- servant on wages
- or mortgagee in possession
- is a deemed tenant under Section 4
- absence of lease deed or rent receipts does not negate tenancy
- consent or authority of owner not required for deemed tenancy
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (01) 22
Writ Petition No. 6165 of 2001
Divesh Chamboowala for petitioners; S.D. Rayrikar for respondent No.1; B.G. Vaidya for respondent No.2
Shri Jagannath Vithu Jadhav (deceased through legal representatives) and others
State of Maharashtra and Abdul Karim Aga and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute over tenancy of agricultural land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the MRT order dated 10 October 2001 and restore the concurrent orders declaring their predecessor as a tenant
Filing Reason
Respondent No.2 (original plaintiff) filed a civil suit claiming ownership and seeking declaration that the predecessor was not a tenant; the tenancy authorities initially held in favor of the defendant, but the MRT reversed those findings
Previous Decisions
Tenancy Awal Karkun held the predecessor to be a tenant cultivating from 1959-60 (order dated 12 August 1991); Sub-Divisional Officer confirmed the order (31 March 1993); MRT allowed revision and set aside both orders (10 October 2001)
Issues
Whether the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating concurrent findings of fact
Whether the petitioners proved tenancy status under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Whether a person lawfully cultivating land without falling in the excepted categories under Section 4 is a deemed tenant in the absence of a lease deed or rent receipts
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: MRT grossly erred by reappreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings; under Section 4, all persons not in excepted categories who lawfully cultivate are deemed tenants, absence of lease deed irrelevant; right under Section 32G arises only after tenant status is adjudicated.
Respondents: No material to establish tenancy; failure to exercise right under Section 32G on tillers' day precludes deemed tenancy; cultivation without owner's consent is not lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who lawfully cultivates land belonging to another and who is not a member of the owner's family, a servant on wages, or a mortgagee in possession is a deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The consent or authority of the owner is not required, and the absence of a lease deed or rent receipts does not negate the status of deemed tenant.
Judgment Excerpts
all persons other than those mentioned in cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 4 who lawfully cultivate land belonging to other persons whether or not their authority is derived directly from the owner of the land must be deemed tenants of the lands.
Undisputedly, the present petitioners are neither from the owners family nor the servants nor the mortgagees in possession. As such, the cultivation by the petitioners would not fall in any of the exempted categories and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court they would be deemed to be a tenant in cultivation.
Procedural History
Original suit filed by respondent No.2 in Civil Court; tenancy issue referred to Tenancy Awal Karkun; Awal Karkun's order dated 12 August 1991 held defendant as tenant; appeal dismissed by Sub-Divisional Officer on 31 March 1993; revision allowed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 10 October 2001; writ petition filed challenging the MRT order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 2(18), 4, 32O, 32G, 32, 32N, 32P, 32Q, 32R
- Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939: 2A
