http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: HARI SAKHARAM DHANAVATE (DEAD) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: A N PATIL TUKARANE (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1995

BENCH: M. M. PUNCHHI, S.C. SEN.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: O R D E R      The narrow  point before  the High Court as also before the Revenue Authorities was whether the appellant-tenant was in arrears  of rent beyond 3 years and could action be taken under  Sec.   25(1)  or   25(2)  of  the  Bombay  Tenancy  & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ?      The distinction between the two provisions is apparent. Sec. 25(1)  enables a  Mamlatdar  to  grant  relief  against termination  of   tenancy  for   non-payment  of   rent   by facilitating payment of rent on call to the tenant to pay it directly to  the landlord  or in  court with  costs  of  the proceedings within  15 days  from the date of the order, and on failure  of which  to suffer  an ejectment.  In contrast, Sec. 25(2)  carves out an exception that if the tenant is in arrears on  his failure to pay rent for any three years, the landlord has  to give  an intimation  to that  effect to the tenant within a period of 3 months of each default, and then ejectment must  follow as  a consequence  and  the  remedial provision under  Sec. 25(1) cannot come to the rescue of the tenant. The  finding recorded  by the High Court is that the instant was  a case  covered under  Sec. 25(2)  and that the Mamlatdar could  not proceed under Sec. 25(1) permitting the tenant to  save the  tenancy on  payment of  arrears of rent within 15  days of  the order.  The  High  Court  has  given adequate  reasons   to  come   to  that   view.  We  see  no justification to alter the same.      The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.      There shall be no order as to costs.