Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, owned agricultural land measuring 28 acres 27 gunthas at mauza Lamkani, tahsil Akot. The trust had obtained exemption under Section 129(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The appellant, Digamber s/o Pandhari Bhise, was a tenant of the trust. On 15th June 1962, the trust alleged that the tenant was in arrears of lease amount and issued a notice on 12th August 1986 terminating the tenancy and seeking possession. The tenant received the notice on 21st August 1986 and replied on 10th September 1986, admitting arrears due to drought in 1983-84 but stating that he had tendered rent which was refused. The trust then filed proceedings before the Tahsildar under Section 36 of the Act for eviction. The Tahsildar, by order dated 9th March 1988, allowed the eviction. The tenant appealed to the Sub Divisional Officer, who by order dated 27th June 1988, set aside the Tahsildar's order. The trust then filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, which by order dated 19th November 1991, dismissed the revision. The trust then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 13th January 2005, restoring the Tahsildar's order. The tenant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The main legal issue was whether the notice of termination complied with Section 36(2) of the Act, which requires notice in the prescribed form and manner. The appellant argued that the notice was not in the prescribed form and therefore invalid. The respondent argued that the notice under the Transfer of Property Act was sufficient. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the notice of termination must strictly comply with Section 36(2) of the Act, and since the notice was not in the prescribed form, the termination was invalid. Consequently, the tenant's right to purchase the land under Section 38 of the Act was not lost, and the tenant's possession was protected under Section 36(1). The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and restored the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Termination of Tenancy - Validity of Notice - Section 36(2) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - The notice of termination issued by the landlord-Trust was not in the prescribed form and manner as required under Section 36(2) of the Act, and therefore, the termination was invalid. The Court held that the notice under the Transfer of Property Act does not substitute the statutory requirement under the Tenancy Act. (Paras 1-10) B) Tenancy Law - Tenant's Right to Purchase - Section 38 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - Since the notice of termination was invalid, the tenant's right to purchase the land under Section 38 of the Act was not extinguished. The Court held that the tenant continues to be a tenant and is entitled to exercise his right to purchase. (Paras 11-15) C) Tenancy Law - Protection of Tenant's Possession - Section 36(1) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - The tenant's possession is protected under Section 36(1) of the Act until the tenancy is validly terminated in accordance with the Act. The Court held that the landlord cannot evict the tenant without following the due process under the Act. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice of termination of tenancy issued by the landlord-Trust complied with the requirements of Section 36(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, and whether the tenant is entitled to protection from eviction.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th January 2005 is set aside. The orders of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 27th June 1988 and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 19th November 1991 are restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Notice of termination of tenancy must comply with Section 36(2) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act
- 1958
- which requires notice to be in prescribed form and manner
- mere service of notice under Transfer of Property Act is insufficient
- tenant's right to purchase land under Section 38 is not lost if notice is invalid
- tenant's possession is protected under Section 36(1) until valid termination.
