http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BHAGWANT PUNDALIK & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KISHAN GANPAT BHARASKAL  & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/10/1970

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1971 AIR  435            1971 SCR  (2) 657  1971 SCC  (1)  15

ACT: Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region)  Act 1958,  ss.  20 and 36-Surrender of  land  by  tenant-Neither written nor verified before Tehsildar-Validity.

HEADNOTE: The  respondents obtained a lease for cultivation  of  land. On  the landlord’s desire to cultivate the land  personally, the respondents surrendered the lands to the landlord.   The surrender  was not in writing nor was there verification  of the surrender by the Tehsildar.  The landlord cultivated the land for a few years, and thereafter granted a lease to  the appellant. The respondents applied under s. 36 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act,  1958, for  restoration  of possession to them.   On  the  question whether the eviction of respondent was legal, this Court, HELD  : Possession obtained by the landlord was  not  lawful for,  he obtained possession of the lands from  the  tenants without complying with the requirements of s. 20 and  sub-s. (2)  of  s.  36.  Sub-section (2) of  s.  36  prohibits  the landlord  from  obtaining possession of any land held  by  a tenant  except  under an order of  Tahsildar.   Delivery  of possession  voluntarily  by the respondents did  not  render possession  of the landlord valid.  Under s.36(1)  a  tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub-s. (2)    may apply in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession. [1659 E] By  s.  20  of  the Act which deals  with  surrender  it  is expressly  provided that surrender shall be in  writing  and shall  be verified in the prescribed manner.   Surrender  of tenancy which does not comply with the requirements of s. 20 is ineffective.  Again the terms of sub-s. (2) of s. 36  are explicit;  they  are  not subject to  any  implication  that possession  obtained  with the consent of  the  tenant,  but without an order of the Tahsildar is valid. [659 H] In  the  present case there is no surrender  of  tenancy  in writing and no verification of surrender by the Tahsildar. Madho S/o Tatya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal & Ors. Special  Civil  Application  No.  206/1967  dt.  11-12-1969, followed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  1409  and 1721 of 1966. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated November 15, 1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench  in Special Civil Application Nos. 746 and 747 of. 1964. S.   K.  Mehta and K. L. Mehta. for the appellants (in  both the appeals). M.   S.  Gupta, for respondents Nos.  1 and 2 (in  C.A.  No. 1409 of 1966. S. S.  KhanduJa, for respondent No. 3 (in both the appeals). 658 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah,  J.-Badridas son of Ramgopal was the owner  of  fields Survey  Nos.  2  and 9/2 of village  Bhamberi,  taluq  Akot, District  Akola.  On February 26, 1958, Badridas  granted  a lease  for cultivation of the lands to two  brothers  Kishan and  Manik.   At the end of the  agricultural  year  1958-59 Badridas’ took possession of the lands from Kishan and Manik representating  that  he  desired  to  cultivate  the  lands personally.   Badridas  cultivated  the  lands  during   the agricultural  years 1959-60 and 1960-61, and  thereafter  on January  18, 1961 he granted a lease of the lands  for  four years  to  Bhagwant son of Pundalik Kishan  and  Manik  then applied  on  June  30, 1961 under S.  36(1)  of  the  Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act,  1958, for an order restored them to possession alleging that their eviction  from  the  lands  was  illegal.   The   Additional Tahsildar dismissed the application, but in appeal the order was reversed.  In the view of the appellate authority Kishan and Manik were in 1958-59 tenants of the lands and they were evicted otherwise than in accordance with the law, and  that they  were  entitled to be restored to possession  under  S. 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region)  Act, 1958.  In a petition by Bhagwant  the  Revenue Tribunal reversed the order of the appellate authority.  The Tribunal held that since Kishan and Manik had given up  pos- session of the lands volutarily and had allowed Badridas  to cultivate the lands for the following two years, they had no right  to  be  reinstated  into  possession  of  the  lands, especially  after  the  lands were let out  by  Badridas  to Bhagwant.  Kishan and Manik then moved in the High Court  of Bombay  at Nagpur, two Special Civil Applications  Nos.  746 and  747 of 1964 in respect of the two fields Survey Nos.  2 and  9/2 separately.  The High Court set aside the order  of the  Revenue  Tribunal and directed that an order  for  pos- session be made in favour of Kishan and Manik in respect  of the two lands.  With special leave, these appeals have  been preferred by Bhagwant. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha  Region) Act,  1958,  was brought into force on  December  30,  1958. Section 20 provides :               "A  tenant  may terminate the tenancy  at  any               time by surrendering his interest of a  tenant               in favour of the landlord.               Provided  that  such  surrender  shall  be  in               writing  and  shall  be  verified  before  the               Tahsildar in the prescribed manner."                                659  Section 36 of the Act provides :  ( 1 ) A tenant . . . .   entitled          to               possession of any land .  under  any  of   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             provisions   of  this  Act  or  as  a   result               ofeviction  in contraven-tion  of  sub-section               (2) may apply in writing for each.  possession               to the Tahsildar.               (2)   No  landlord shall obtain possession  of               any  land,  held by a tenant except  under  an               order  of the Tahsildar.  For  obtaining  such               order  he  shall make an  application  in  the               prescribed  form and within. a period  of  two               years  from  the date on which  the  right  to               obtain  possession of the land, is  deemed  to               have accrued to him: For  the  agricultural year 1958-59 Kishan  and  Manik  were tenants in respect of two lands in question.  Badridas  took possession  of the lands at the end of that year.   Granting that Kishan and Manik delivered the lands voluntarily, there could not under S-20 of the Act be a valid surrender, unless the  surrender  was  in  writing  and  verified  before  the Tahsildar and in the prescribed manner.  Possession obtained by Badridas was not lawful, for Badridas obtained possession of  the  land from the tenants without  complying  with  the requirements  of  s. 20 and of sub-s. (2) of  s.  36.   Sub- section  (2) of s. 36 prohibits the landlord from  obtaining possession  of  any land held by a tenant  except  under  an order of the Tahsildar.  Delivery of possession  voluntarily by  Kishan  and  Manik  did not  render  the  possession  of Badridas-valid.   Under  s.  36(1) a  tenant  who  has  been evicted in contravention of sub-s. (2) may apply in  writing to the Tahsildar for such possession. Counsel for the appellant contended that s. 36(2) does  not- commence   with   the   expression   "Notwithstanding    any agreement,. usage, decree or order of a court of law" as  s. 19  of the Act does,. and on that account it may  reasonably be  inferred that the Legislature intended that  only  those tenants  shall be deemed entitled to possession  within  the meaning of s. 36(1) who were dispossessed by fraud, coercion or  misrepresentation,  and not tenant who  had  voluntarily parted with possession of the lands.  We are unable to agree with  that contention.  Section 19 provides that  not  with- standing any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court of law  tenancy  of  any land held by a  tenant  shall  not  be terminated  exception the cases specified therein.   Thereby it  was intended to make the provisions of s. 19  paramount. In  s.  20’of  the  Act which deals  with  surrender  it  is expressly  enacted  that surrender shall be in  writing  and shall  be Verified in the prescribed manner.   Surrender  of tenancy  which does not comply with the requirements  of  s. 20, 660 is  ineffective.   Again,  sub-s. (2) of  S.  36  imposes  a disability  upon the landlord from obtaining  possession  of any  land occupied by a tenant except under an order of  the Tahsildar.   The terms of subs. (2) of S. 36 are explicit  : they  are  not subject to any implication’  that  possession obtained  with  the consent of the tenant,  but  without  an order of the Tahsildar is valid In  a  recent  judgment  Madhao  s/o  Tatya  Sonar  v.   The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors. (1) the High Court  of Bombay  held that S. 36(2) is plenary and controls S. 20  of the  Act.   In the present case- there is  no  surrender  of tenancy  in writing and no verification of surrender by  the Tahsildar.   We  need  express no opinion  on  the  question Whether mere verification by the Tahsildar without an  order of   the  Tahsildar  authorising  the  landlord  to   obtain possession disentitles the tenant to claim possession  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

S. 36(1). The  appeals fail and tire dismissed.  Having regard to  all the  circumstances,  however, we think, there should  be  no order as to costs in this Court. Counsel for the appellant Bhagwant submitted that there  are crops  standing on the lands, and prayed that the  appellant may be allowed to reap them. 0one months time from the  date of  this  judgment  is given to  the  appellant  to  deliver possession of the lands. Y.P.         Appeals dismissed. (1) Special Civil Application No. 206 of 1967 decided on September 11/12 1969. 661