http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DAMODAR GANPAT WANI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJARAM DHONDU WAGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/07/1978

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1421            1978 SCR  (3)1068  1978 SCC  (3) 422

ACT: Bombay  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,  1948,  Sections 32, 34, 34(2A), 37(1) and 88(1A)-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: Pursuant  to proceedings under s. 34 of the  Bombay  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948, the first appellant,  the landlord, obtained possession of agricultural land from  the tenant  on  June 14, 1960.  On April 2, 1964 he  executed  a registered  sale  deed transferring the land to  the  second appellant.  On January 2, 1965 the first respondent, Rajaram Dhondu  Wagh, a son of the original tenant, applied  to  the Extra  Awal Karkun of Jamner under s. 37 of the Tenancy  Act against  the  appellants for possession of the land  on  the ground  that  the first appellant had sold the land  to  the second appellant before the expiry of 12 years from the date he  had  been  put into  possession.   The  application  was allowed.   On  appeal by the appellants  the  Collector  set aside  the  order  of the Extra Awal Karkun  and  held  that having regard to s. 88(1A) of the Tenancy Act Rajaram Dhondu Wagh could not be described as a tenant entitled to hold the land   under  s.  34  of  the  Tenancy  Act.   On   revision application  by  the  respondents  the  Maharashtra  Revenue Tribunal  set aside the order of the Collector  and  awarded possession of the land to the respondents, holding that  the respondents  were  tenants.  The  appellants  sought  relief under  Art. 227 of the Constitution before the  Bombay  High Court,  but the petition was summarily rejected by an  order dated June 17, 1968.  That order was challenged in appeal by special leave. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD  :  1.  Section 34 of the Bombay  Tenancy  Act  confers rights and privileges on the landlord as well as the  tenant and if a tenant fell within the mischief of Section  88(1A); the  landlord, on making out a case under Section 34(1)  was exempt  from the restrictions on his rights imposed by  sub- section  (2)  and (2A) of Section 34 because the  rights  or privileges  conferred  on the tenant by  those  sub-sections were no longer available to him by reason of Section 88(1A). [1071 F-G] Section  34C(1) of the Tenancy Act entitles the landlord  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

terminate the tenancy of the protected tenant by giving  him one  year’s  notice in writing, if the  landlord  bona  fide requires the land for cultivating personally.  Section 34(2- A)  qualifies the landlord’s right to terminate the  tenancy by  certain conditions, and one of the them is that  if  the land  held  by the landlord is more  than  the  agricultural holding  in am, the right of the landlord to  terminate  the tenancy  of the protected tenant must be limited to an  area which should, after such termination, leave with the  tenant half the area of the land leased.  That condition confers  a right or privilege on the tenant to retain half the area  of the  land leased notwithstanding that a case has  been  made out  by the landlord under section 34(1) for termination  of the  tenancy.   Section  88(1A) provides  that  a  protected tenant, whose name stands entered as an owner in the  record of rights on the first day of January 1952 in  respect  of any land fifty acres or more of jirayat or twelve and  half acres  or more of irrigated land in area in addition to  the land  held by him on lease as a protected tenant, shall  not be  entitled  to  any rights or privileges  conferred  on  a protected  tenant  by the provisions of section  32  or  34. What section 88(1A) does is to deprive the protected  tenant of the rights and privileges conferred on him by section  32 or  34.  It does nothing more.  Consequently, the  right  or privilege  which the tenant enjoyed under  section  34(2-A), that is to say, the retention of possession of half the area of the land leased was lost, and in the result the  landlord became  entitled  to possession of the entire  land  leased. [1071 C-F] 1069 The landlord obtains his right to terminate the tenancy of a protected tenant under Section 34(1) of the Act and that  is what happened in this case. The first appellant was able  to terminate the tenancy because of Section 34(1).[1071 H] Janga  Baoji  Mali v. Nasarat Jahan Begum and  Ors.   I.L.R. 1958 Bombay 571; approved. 2.   Section  37(1)  of the Act comes into  play  after  the stage  of  termination  of the tenancy  because  of  Section 34(1).   Section 37(1) declares that "if after the  landlord takes  possession of the land after the termination  of  the tenancy  under section 34, he fads to use it for any of  the purposes specified in the notice given under sub-section (1) of section 34 within one year from the date on which he took possession  or ceases to use it at any time for any  of  the aforesaid  purposes  within twelve years from  the  date  on which he took such possession, the landlord shall  forthwith restore  possession of the land to the tenant whose  tenancy was terminated by him............... [1072 A-B] The first appellant, in the instant case, after having taken possession  of the land on termination of the tenancy  under section  34,  ceased  to  use it for  any  of  the  purposes mentioned  in the notice within twelve years from  June  14, 1960  the date on which he took possession.  He sold  it  to the  second  appellant  on April  2,  1964  and  transferred possession  to him.  The possession of the second  appellant cannot be regarded as the possession of the first appellant, and  the  conclusion must be that the default  mentioned  in section 37(1) took place and the respondents became entitled to possession of the land.  The respondents are entitled  to possession   of  the  land  subject,  of  course,   to   any limitations  placed by the law in regard to  their  holding. [1072 C-D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 243 of 1969. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated 17-6-68 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1090 of 1968. S.   K. Mehta for the Appellants. R.   B. Datar and Miss Parbhat Qadari for Respondents 1(a) to (d), 2, 4, and 6. Ex-parte against Respondents 3,         5 and 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed  against the  order of the High Court of Bombay dated June  17,  1968 summarily  rejecting  a petition under Article  227  of  the Constitution. A  parcel of land, 11 acres 8 gunthas in areas, situated  in village  Shingayat  in  Jamner taluka  of  Jalgaon  district belonged  originally to Damodar Ganpat Wani.  Dhondu  Namdeo Wagh was his tenant.  In 1954, the landlord served a  notice on  the  tenant under section 34 of the Bombay  Tenancy  and Agricultural  Lands Act of 1948 (hereinafter referred to  as ’the Tenancy Act:) calling upon him to deliver possession of the  land  as he required it for his  personal  cultivation. The  tenant  refused  to comply.  The  landlord  then  filed Tenancy  Application No. 61 of 1956 before the Tenancy  Awal Karkun  at  Jamner.   The Tenancy Awal  Karkun  allowed  the application  and made an order terminating the  tenancy  and restoring the land to the landlord.  The tenant appealed  to the District Deputy Collector, Chalisgaon Division.  On June 20,  1957,  the  District Deputy  Collector  made  an  order awarding  possession  of half the land to the  landlord  and permitting  the other half to remain with the  tenant.   The tenant  applied  in  revision  before  the  Bombay   Revenue Tribunal.   The Tribunal passed an order dated  November  8, 1957 framing an issue on the point whether the tenant was at all entitled to bold the 1070 land in dispute under sections 32 and 34 of the Tenancy  Act inasmuch  as  he  personally  cultivated  land  of  his  own exceeding  the  ceiling area of 50 acres.  He  remanded  the case  to the District Deputy Collector for decision  on  the merits.  On remand, the District Deputy Collector held  that the  tenant owned more than 50 acres of land on  January  1, 1952  and, therefore, was not entitled under section  88(1A) of the Tenancy Act to the rights and privileges conferred by sections  32  and  34 of the said Act, By  his  order  dated January  31, 1959, he directed that the landlord be  put  in possession  of the entire land.  The tenant  challenged  the order   in  revision,  and  the  revision  application   was dismissed  by  the  Tribunal on April 30,  1959.   A  review application  by  the  tenant  was  also  dismissed  by   the Tribunal.  A petition under Article 227 of the  Constitution filed  by  the  tenant  in  the  High  Court  was  summarily dismissed. During  the pendency of the petition in the High  Court  the tenant,   Dhondu   Namdeo   Wagh,   died   and   his   legal representatives,  the present respondents, where brought  on the record.  Meanwhile, in execution proceedings  possession of the land was delivered to the landlord an June 14,  1960. On  April 2, 1964, the landlord executed a  registered  sale deed transferring the land to Ramdas Bhika Pardeshi. On  January  2, 1965, the first respondent,  Rajaram  Dhondu Wagh,   a  son  of  the  original  tenant,   filed   Tenancy Application  No. 52 of 1965 before the Extra Awal Karkun  of Jamner  under  section  37 of the Tenancy  Act  against  the landlord  and  Ramdas  Bhika  Pardeshi  alleging  that   the landlord  had sold the land to Ramdas Bhika Pardeshi  before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

the expiry of the period of twelve years from June 14, 1960, when he had been put into possession.  The Extra Awal Karkun made  an  order  dated  November  30,  1965  permitting  the respondents to recover possession of the land from Pardeshi. The  landlord  and  Pardeshi appealed to  the  Collector  of Jalgaon,  and on December 5, 1966 the Collector allowed  the appeal and set aside the order of the Awal Karkun.  He  held that  having  regard to section 88(lA) of  the  Tenancy  Act Rajaram Dhondu Wagh could not be described as tenant of  the land and was not entitled to hold it under section 34 of the Tenancy  Act.  He allowed Pardeshi to remain in  possession. Against the order of the Collector, the respondents filed  a revision   application   before  the   Maharashtra   Revenue Tribunal.  The Tribunal, on January 22, 1968, set aside  the order of the Collector and awarded possession of the land to the respondents.  It found that the respondents were tenants and could hold the land in that capacity under section 34 of the  Tenancy Act.  The appellants then sought  relief  under Article  227 of the Constitution, in the High Court but  the petition  was summarily rejected by an order dated June  17, 1968.  That order is under challenge in this appeal. In  its order dated January 22, 1968 allowing  the  revision application, the Tribunal held that the substantive right of the  landlord  to  obtain possession of the  land  from  the tenant must be founded in section 34 of the Tenancy Act  and not  in section 88(1A) of the Act, and what  section  88(lA) did  was  merely to withdraw the privileges granted  to  the tenant under section 34 to obtain possession of half the 1071 land, thus enabling the first appellant to obtain possession of  the entire land and that as the possession was taken  by the  first appellant for bona fide personal cultivation,  it was   open  to  the  erstwhile  tenant  or  his  sons,   the respondents, to apply under section 37 read with section  39 of the Tenancy Act for possession of the land.  The Tribunal also  held that section 88(lA) did not bring to an  end  the ’status  of  the  tenant as a  protected  tenant.   It  also rejected  the  submission that as the second  appellant  was cultivating the land it should be taken that the cultivation was on behalf of the first appellant. We  have no hesitation in dismissing this  appeal.   Section 34(1) of the Tenancy Act entitles the landlord to  terminate the tenancy of the protected tenant by giving him one year’s notice  in writing, if the landlord bona fide  requires  the land for cultivating personally.  Section 34(2-A)  qualifies the  landlord’s  right to terminate the tenancy  by  certain conditions, and one of them is that if the land held by  the landlord is more than the agricultural holding in areas, the right  of  the  landlord to terminate  the  tenancy  of  the protected  tenant must be limited to an area  which  should, after such termination, leave with the tenant half the  area of  the  land  leased.   The  condition  confers  right   or privilege on the tenant to retain half the area of the  land leased notwithstanding that a case has been made out by  the landlord  under  section  34(1)  for  termination  of the tenancy.  Section 88(1A) provides that "a protected  tenant, whose  name  stands entered as an owner- in  the  record  of rights  on the first day of January 1952 in respect  of  any land fifty acres or more of Jirayat or twelve and half acres or  more of irrigated land in area in addition to  the  land held  by  him on lease as a protected tenant, shall  not  be entitled  to  any  rights  or  privileges  conferred  on   a protected  tenant  by the provisions of section 32  or  34." What section 88(1A) does is to deprive the protected  tenant of the rights and privileges conferred on him by section  32

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

or  34.  It does nothing more.  Consequently, the  right  or privilege  which the tenant enjoyed under ’section  34(2-A), that is to say, the retention of possession of half the area of the land leased was, lost, and in the result the landlord became  entitled  to possession of the entire  land  leased. That section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy Act confers rights and privileges  on  the  landlord  as well  as  the  tenant  was affirmed  by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in  Janga Baoji  Mali v. Nasarat Jahan Begum and Others(1) and it  was declared  that  if  a tenant fell  within  the  mischief  of section  88(1A),  the landlord, on making out a  case  under section  34(1),  was  exempt from the  restrictions  on  his rights  imposed by sub-sections (2) and (2-A) of section  34 because the rights or privileges conferred on the ten-ant by those subsections were no longer available to him by  reason of  section 88(1A).  It is beyond dispute that the  landlord obtains  his right to terminate the tenancy of  a  protected tenant  under  section 34(1) of the Act, and  that  is  what happened  in  this case.  The first appellant  was  able  to terminate  the  tenancy  because  of  section  34(1).   That bring,,  into  play section 37(1) of the Act  Section  37(1) declared that "if after the (1)  I.L.R. 1959 Bombay, 571. 1072 landlord takes possession of the land after the  termination of the tenancy under section 34, he fails to use it for  any of  the  purposes specified in the notice given  under  sub- section  (1) of section 34 within one year from the date  on which he took possession or ceases to use it at any time for any  of the aforesaid purposes within twelve years from  the date  on which he took such possession, the  landlord  shall forthwith restore possession of the land to the tenant whose tenancy  was terminated by him........... It is  clear  from the  record  that  the first appellant  after  having  taken possession  of the land on termination of the tenancy  under section  34,  ceased  to  use it for  any  of  the  purposes mentioned  in the notice within twelve years from  June  14, 1960  the date on which he took possession.  He sold  it  to the  second  appellant  on April  2,  1964  and  transferred possession  to him.  The possession of the second  appellant cannot be regarded as the possession of the first appellant, and  the  conclusion must be that the default  mentioned  in section 37(1) took place and the respondents became entitled to possession of the land.  The respondents are entitled  to possession of the land subject of course, to any limitations placed by the law in regard to their holding. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. 1073