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

PETITIONER: DHONDU UNDRU CHUDHARY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GANPAT LAL SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1991

BENCH: SAIKIA, K.N. (J) BENCH: SAIKIA, K.N. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1037            1991 SCR  (1)  81  1991 SCC  Supl.  (1) 513 JT 1991 (1)   145  1991 SCALE  (1)43

ACT:      Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sectins 45, 47, 61, 65, 87 and 88-Mamlatdar appinted to manage  suit land-Lease of land for 10 years-Payment of rent to Mamlatdar even after expiry of lease period-Whether lease continues.      Bombay  Tenancy  and  Agricultural  Lands  Act,   1948- Sections  61,  4, 4-B-Mamlatdar appointed to  manager  suit- land-Granting  of  lease by him-Expiry  of  lease-Subsequent termination of management- Sections 4, 4-B not applicable.

HEADNOTE:      The  suit land was taken under Government management  as it  was  lying  fallow  for  two  consecutive  years.    The Mamlatdar, appointed as a Manager thereof under Section  45, of  the  Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands  Act,  1948, after  assuming management, leased out the said land to  the appellant  for a period of 10 years by an agreement of  lease dated 7.12.1951.  The period of lease expired on  6.12.1961. However,  the  management  of the  land  was  terminated  by Government by the Assistant Collector’s order dated  27.7.63 and  possession thereof was ordered to be restored  to  the respondent-landlord.      The appellant filed a Civil Suit against the respondent contending  that he was paying rent to the Mamlatdar  during the period 7.12.1961 to 27.7.1963 and thus continued to be a tenant in respect of the land.      The Civil Judge made a reference to the Mamlatdar,  who held that the appellant continued to be tenant.      The  respondent’s  appeal to  the  Assistant  Collector having failed, a revision application was moved  before  the Revenue  Tribunal  wherein the question  arose  whether  the appellant’s tenancy was subsisting on 27.7.1963, the date of termination of the management.      The   Tribunal  held  that  the  appellant  could   not continue  as  tenant on the termination of  the  management, since  the  land was taken under the  Government  management under Section 88(1) of the Act.                                                        82      The High Court in the Application under Article 227  of the Constitution of India having upheld this finding  of the Tribunal, the appellant filed Special Leave petition to this

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

Court.      The  appellant contended that having continued  payment of rent to the Mamlatdar even after expiry of the lease till the  termination of management, he continued to be a  tenant which  the  landlord could not avoid on  resumption  of  the land,  while  the  respondent submitted that  the  appellant could  by no means continue to be a tenant after the  expiry of  lease, and that no fresh lease was granted to him  after the management was terminated.      Dismissing the appeal, this Court,      HELD: 1.  On the finding of the courts below that after the expiry of the lease, no fresh lease was  granted by  the Manager,  the  appellant’s claim to have  continued  as  the tenant even after expiry of the lease on 6.12.1961 and  till 27.7.1963,  the date of termination, by paying rent for  the period to the Mamlatdar would be of no avail, in the absence of  fresh  lease  after  expiry of the  10  years  lease  on 6.12.1961.   This  would  be so because  the  Act  does  not envisage the Government as a landholder but only as Manager. While  delivering back the land into the possession  of  the landholder,  it  could  not be  burdened  with  any  tenancy created  or  resulting  while  under  management.   Besides, there  could  be  no privacy between the  landlord  and  the erstwhile tenant under Government in the matter of  tenancy. Between   the   appellant  and  the   respondent   landlord, therefore, no question of the former continuing as tenant of the  latter could arise after the land was reverted  to  the landholder. [86B-D]      2.  The  appellant could not  have been a deemed  tenant either  under Section 4 or 4B of the Act inasmuch as  Section 88 of  the Act grants exemption inter alia to lands  held  on lease from the Government.[86E]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 936  of 1977.      From  the  Judgement and Order dated 16.9.1976  of  the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 2741 of 1971.      Shishir Sharma and P.H. Parekh for the Appellant.      Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent.                                                        83      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      K.N.  SAIKIA, J.  This appeal by Special Leave is  from the  Judgement  of  the High Court  of  Bombay,  dated  16th September,  1976,  in Special Civil Application N.  2741  of 1971   upholding  the Judgement of the  Maharashtra  Revenue Tribunal.      The  suit  land  bearing  Survey  No.  182,  owned   by Shankarlal  Kunjilal, was taken under Government  management as per order of the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon bearing No. TEN.  WS-946 dated 14.12.1950 as the land was  lying  fallow for  two  consecutive  years.   The  Mallatdar,  Raver   was appointed as a Manager thereof under Section 45 of the Bombay Tenancy  and  Agricultural  Lands  Act,  1948,   hereinafter referred to as "the Act.’  After assuming the management the land was leased out to the appellant Dhondu Choudhary by the Mamlatdar for a period of 10 years by an agreement of  lease dated 7.12.1951.  The period of lease accordingly expired on 6.12.1951.   The  period  of lease  accordingly  expired  on 6.12.1961.    However,  the  management  of  the  land   was terminated  by the Government by the  Assistant  Collector’s order  dated  27.7.1963,  and  the  possession  thereof  was ordered  to be restored to the respondent  landlord.   There

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

was  nothing  on  the record to show  that  the  lease  which expired on 6.12.1961 was extended by the Manager  thereafter till the termination of management by order dated 27.7.1963.      The  appellant claimed that he was paying rent  to  the Mamlatdar  during the period of 7.12.1961 to  27.7.1963  and thus continued to a be   tenant in respect of the land.   He filed  a Civil Suit against the respondent in the  Court  of Civil  Judge, Raver, who made a reference to the  Mamlatdar, Raver  who held that the appellant continued to  be  tenant. The  respondent’s appeal to the Assistant  Collector  having failed,   he  moved  a  revision  application   before   the Maharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal, hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the  Tribunal’  wherein  the  question  arose  whether  the appellant’s tenancy was subsisting on 27.7.1963, and whether he had become the tenant in respect  of the land since  that date under the Act.      Relying on a bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Special  Civil  Application No. 1077 of  1961  Ghambhir  Lal Laxman Das v. Collector of Jalgaon, (decided on  20.12.1962) wherein  it  was  held that the person  to  whom  lease  was granted  by  the Manager of the land which was  taken  under Government  management, could not continue to be the  tenant after  the expiry of the period of 10 years without a  fresh lease, and that after the management was terminated by the                                                        84 Government on expiration of the lease, the tenancy under the lease  could  not be said to be subsisting on  the  date  on which the management was terminated.  The Tribunal held that the appellant could not continue as tenant since termination of  the lease on 27.7.1963.  The Tribunal further held  that since the land was taken under the Government management  by the order of the  Assistant Collector under Section 88(1) of the  Act   the  provision s of Sections 1  to  87  were  not applicable and the appellant, therefore, could not  continue to  be   tenant after expiration of the period of  lease  on 6.12.1961.  The High Court in the Special Application  under Article  227 of the Constitution of India having upheld  the above  finding  of  the  Tribunal,  the  appellant  obtained Special Leave.      The  only  submission of the learned  counsel  for  the appellant  Mr. Shishir Sharma is that the  appellant  having continued payment of rent to Mamlatdar even after expiry  of lease  till the termination of management, he  continued  to be a tenant which the landlord could not avoid on resumption of the land.  Dr. N.M. Ghatate, the learned counsel for  the respondent,  submits  that the appellant could by  no  means continue to be a tenant after his lease expired and no fresh lease  was granted to him and more so after  the  management was terminated on 27.7.1963.      We  find force in Dr. Ghatate’s submission.   Admittedly the  management  of  the  land  was  assumed  by  the  State Government  under  Section 65 of the Act.  Section  65  deals with  assumption  of  management  of  lands  which  remained unclutivated, and says:          "65.   (1)  If it appears to the  State  Government          that  for any two consecutive years, any  land  has          remained uncultivated or the full and efficient use          of  the land has not been made for the  purpose  of          agriculture,  through the default of the  holder or          any  other cause whatsoever not beyond his  control          the State Government may, after making such inquiry          as  it  thinks fit, declare that the  management of          such  land  shall be assumed.  The  declaration  so          made shall be conclusive.          (2)   On  the assumption  of the  management,  such

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

        land shall vest in the State Government during  the          continuance  of the management and the provision of          Chapter  IV  shall mutatis mutandis  apply  to  the          said land:                                                        85            Provided  that the manager may in suitable  cases          give  such land on lease at rent even equal  to  the          amount of its assessment:            Provided  further that, if the management of  the          land  has  been assumed under  sub-section  (1)  on          account  of the default of the tenant, such  tenant          shall  cease to have any right or  privilege  under          Chapter  II or III, as the case may be, in  respect          of such land, with effect from the date on and  from          which such management has been assumed."      Admittedly, the Manager was appointed under Section  45 of  the  Act,  Section 45 deals with  vesting of  estate  in management, and says:          "45.  (1)  On the publication  of  the  notification          under section 44, estate the in respect of which the          notification  has been published shall, so  long  as          the  management   continues,  vest   in  the   State          Government.   Such  management  shall be  deemed  to          commence from the date on which  the notification is          published and the State Government shall  appoint  a          Manager to be in charge of such estate.          (2)  Notwithstanding the vesting of the  estate  in          the  State  Government under sub-section  (1),  the          tenant holding the lands on lease comprised in  the          estate  shall, save as otherwise provided  in  this          Chapter, continue to have the same right and  shall          be  subject to the same obligations, as they   have          or  are  subject under the  proceeding  Chapters  in          respect of the lands  held by them on lease."      Section  61 deals with termination of  management,  and says:          "61.   The State Government, when it is of  opinion          that it is not necessary to continue the management          of  the estate, by order published in the  Official          Gazette,  direct that the said management shall  be          terminated.    On  the  termination  of  the   said          management, the estate shall be delivered into  the          possession of the holder, or, if he is dead, of any          person  entitled to the said estate  together  with          any balances which may be due to the credit of  the          said  holder.   All acts done or purporting  to  be          done  by the Manager during the continuance of  the          management  of the estate shall be binding  on  the          holder  or to any person to whom the possession  of          the estate has been delivered."                                                        86      Thus on termination of the management the suit land  in the instant case was to be delivered into the possession  of the respondent holder and all acts done or purporting to  be done by the Manager during the continuance of the management of  the  estate should be binding on the holder  or  on  any person  to  whom  the  possession of  the  estate  had  been delivered.   In the instant case the finding of  the  Courts below  is that after expiry of the lease no fresh lease  was granted  by  the  Manager.  In view  of  this  finding,  the appellant’s  claim  to have continued as   the  tenant  even after  expiry of the lease on 6.12.1961 and till  27.7.1963, the  date of termination, by paying rent for the  period  to the Mamlatdar would be of no avail, in the absence of  fresh lease after expiry of the 10 years lease on 6.12.1961.   The

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

Tribunal  followed the binding decision of the  Bombay  High Court  holding  that  there was no lease in  favour  of  the appellant  and that by mere holding over he could  not  have continued  the status of a tenant. This would be so  because the Act does not envisage the Government as a landholder but only  as Manager.  While delivering back the land  into  the possession of the landholder, it could not be burdened  with any  tenancy  created or resulting while  under  management. Besides, there could be no privacy between the landlord  and the  erstwhile  tenant  under Government in  the  matter  of tenancy.  Between the appellant and the respondent landlord, therefore, no question of the former continuing as tenant of the  latter could arise after the land was reverted  to  the landholder.      Mr. Sharma’s submission that the appellant was a deemed tenant  is also not tenable.  The appellant could  not  have been  a  deemed  tenant under Section 4 or  4B  of  the  Act inasmuch  as  Section 88 of the Act grants  exemption  inter alia to lands held on lease from the Government.  It says:          "88.   (1)  Save  as  otherwise  provided  in  sub-          section(2),  nothing in the forging provisions  of          this Act shall apply-          (a)  to lands belonging to, or held on lease  from,          the Government;          xxx   xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx   xxx   xxx            (d)  to an estate or land taken under  management          by the State Government under Chapter IV or section          65  except  as provided in the said Chapter  IV  or          section 65, as the case may be, and in sections  66,          80A, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87:                                                        87            Provided that from the date on which the land  is          released   from   management,  all  the   foregoing          provisions  of  this Act shall apply  thereto;  but          subject  to the modification that in the case of  a          tenancy,  not being a permanent tenancy,  which  on          that date subsists in the land......          xxx   xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx" In  Keshav Vithal Mahatre v. Arbid Ranchhod  Parekh,  [1973] Bom. L.R. LXXXV 694, a learned Single Judge has held that  a lease  of  land  granted by a  Manager under s.  47  of  the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, comes to an end  with the termination of the management of the  land  by virtue  of  s. 61 of the Act.  If the  tenant  continues  to remain  on the land thereafter, he would be  cultivating  it unlawfully  as a trespasser and he cannot, therefore,  claim to  be  a  deemed tenant under s. 4 of  the  Act.   This  is consistent  with  the decision in Ghambhir Lal’s case(supra) relied on by the Tribunal.      Thus, Sections 4 and 4B were not applicable during  the period  from  expiry  of the lease  to  the  termination  of management.      In  the result, we find no merit in this appeal and  it is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. V.P.R                                   Appeal dismissed.                                                        88