http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SHRIRAM MANDIR SANSTHAN , SHRI RAM SANSTHAN PUSODA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VATSALABAI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/12/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V.  MANOHAR, A.P.  MISRA.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Mrs.Suiala V.  Manohar, J. The  appellants  in these appeals are trusts, either for an educational purpose or are  institutions  for  public religious worship.     The  entire  income  from  the  lands belonging to each of these institutions is  appropriated  by it for  the  purposes  of the trust.  All these institutions are covered by Section 129(b)  of  the  Bombay  Tenancy  and Agricultural  Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act of 1958’).   Section  129  of the Tenancy Act of 1958 is as follows:         "129.   Nothing in the foregoing provision         except section 2, the provision of Chapter         II (excluding sections  21,22,23,  24  and         37)  and  section 91 and the provisions of         Chapters X  and  XII  in  so  far  as  the         provisions   of   the  said  Chapters  are         applicable to any of the matters  referred         to in sections mentioned above shall apply         -         (a)  ..............         (b)  to  lands which are the property of a         trust trust for  an  educational  purpose,         hospital   Panjarpole,   Gaushata,  or  an         institution for public religious  worship,         provided  the  entire income of such lands         is appropriated for the  purpose  of  such         trust; and         (c) ..............         (d) ..............         Explanation - For the  purpose  of  clause         (b),   a   certificate   granted   by  the         Collector after holding an  inquiry,  that         the   conditions  mentioned  in  the  said         clause are satisfies by the trust shall be         the conclusive evidence in that behalf Each of these trusts have been granted a certificate by the Collector under the Explanation to Section 129 of the Tenancy Act of 1956. The  respondents in each of the appeals and/or their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

predecessors-in-title were tenants in respects of the  lands belonging to  the  appellants.   On the death of the tenant, the appellants filed an application for summary eviction  of the  respondents  under  Section  120  of the Tenancy Act of l98.  The appellants contended that  o  the  death  of  the tenant, the tenancy came to an end and they were entitled to obtain possession  of  the  lands.    In  these proceedings, ultimately the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision held that the tenant of the appellants-trust  had  not  become  a statutory purchaser under the Tenancy Act of 1958.  However, the heirs of the deceased tenant were entitled to succeed to the tenancy.      Hence  the  revision  application  of  the appellants was dismissed.  This decision was  challenged  by the  appellants  by  filing  a writ petition before the High Court.  The High Court has dismissed the writ  petitions  so filed  on  the  ground that the issue is covered against the appellants by a decision of the Full  Bench  of  the  Bombay High  Court  in  Khanqah-Kadria  Trust  (Wakf),  Balapur  v. Shevantabai wd/o Raoji Shivaji (1989 Mh.L.J.   891).    This has led to the filing of the present appeals. The question which  requires  consideration  in  all these  appeals is whether, in the case of lands belonging to a trust or an educational institution falling within Section 129(b) of the Tenancy Act of 1958, the tenancy is  heritable on the  death  of  a tenant, by his heirs.  Under Section 54 which forms a part of Chapter III of the Tenancy Act,  1958, it is provided as follows:         "54.   (1)  Where  a  tenant   dies,   the         landlords  shall   be   deemed   to   have         continued the tenancy -         (a) if   such    tenant  was  member of an         undivided Hindu family  to  the  surviving         member of the said family, and         (b) if such tenant was not a member of  an         undivided  Hindu  family, to his heirs, on         the same terms  and  conditions  on  which         such tenant was holding at the time of his         death.         (2)  Where  the  tenancy  is  inherited by         heirs other than the widow of the deceased         tenant,  such  widow  of  the  charge  for         maintenance on the profit of such land.         (3) The interest an  occupancy  tenant  in         his  holding shall on his death pass by in         accordance with his personal law." The marginal note to Section 54 sets out, "Rights of tenants to be heritable". Section  129,  however, which deals with the tenancy of  lands  belonging,  inter  alia,  to  places  of   public religious  worship  and  educational institutions, provides, (inter alia) that Chapter III of the Tenancy Act, 1958  will not apply  to such institutions.  Therefore, Section 54 does not apply to the tenants of these  institutions,  Are  these tenancies heritable under any other provision of law? To  answer  this  question  we will have to examine, broadly, the scheme  of  the  Tenancy  Act  of  1958.    The preamble to the Act states, inter alia, that         "WHEREAS  it is expedient to amend the law         which governs the relations  of  landlords         and  tenants  of agricultural lands.......         in the Vidarbha Region  of  the  State  of         Maharashtra  with  a  view to bringing the         status and rights of  tenants  as  far  as         possible  in line with those prevailing in         certain other parts of the State;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

       AND  WHEREAS  it  is  expedient   in   the         interests   of   the   general  public  to         regulate and impose  restrictions  on  the         transfer  of agricultural lands ..........         belonging    to     or     occupied     by         agriculturists,   agricultural  labourers,         ..........  and   to   provide   for   the         assumption    of    the    management   of         circumstances and to  make  provisions  of         certain    other    matters    hereinafter         appearing ........" The   Act,   therefore,   ostensibly   seeks  to  bring  the relationship of landlords and tenants in the Vidarbha Region in line with the position prevailing in other parts  of  the State of  Maharashtra.    The  other object of the Act is to regulate  and  impose  restrictions  on  the   transfer   of agricultural  lands and to provide for the assumption of the management of the agricultural lands  and  to  make  certain other provisions.  The Act, therefore, is not meant entirely for the benefit of tenants although it gives valuable rights to the  tenants  of  agricultural  land  generally.    Under Section 2(32) a "tenant" is defined to  mean  a  person  who holds  land  on  lease  and  includes  - (a) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Sections 6,7, or  8  and  (b)  a person who is a protected lessee or occupancy tenant. Sections  6,  7  and  8 fall under Chapter II of the Tenancy Act of 1958  which  deals  with  general  provisions regarding tenancy.    Under Section 46 which forms a part of Chapter III, there is a provision for transfer of  ownership of  all  lands  held  by tenants, which they are entitled to purchase from their landlords under any of the provisions of this Chapter with effect from 1st of April, 1961.  There are certain exceptions to these provisions which are set out  in that section.    Under  Section  49A  which  was inserted in Chapter  III   by   the   Maharashtra   Act   2   of   1962, notwithstanding  anything contained in sections 41 or 46, on and from the 1st of April, 1983, the ownership of all  lands held  by a tenant being land which is not transferred to the tenant under section 46, or which is not  purchased  by  him under  section 41 or 50, shall stand transferred to and vest in such tenant who shall, from the date aforesaid, be deemed to be  the  full  owner  of  such  land,  if  such  land  is cultivated  by  him  personally,  and  on condition that the landlord has not given a notice of termination of tenancy as set out in that section and subject  to  the  various  other provisions of  that  section.    These sections which form a part of Chapter III do  not  apply  to  tenancies  of  lands covered by Section 129. Only some of the preceding provisions of the Tenancy Act  of 1956 apply to tenancies of lands belonging to trusts for  educational  purposes  or   institutions   for   public religious worship provided the entire income of such land is appropriated for   the   purposes   of  such  trusts.    The provisions which apply are Section 2, all  sections  falling under  Chapter II with the exception of Sections 21, 22, 23, 24 and 37; Section 91, Chapter X and Chapter XII.    Section 54  which  forms  a part of Chapter III, therefore, does not apply  to  the  land  belonging  to  such  a  trust  or  and institution for public religious worship.  The Full Bench of the  High  Court in the case of Khanqah-Kadria Trust (Wakf), Balapur v.  Shevantabai wd/o Raoji Shivaji (supra), however, held  that  although  Section  54  which  makes  a   tenancy heritable  does  not  apply,  the  ordinary  law relating to succession would apply  and,  therefore,  tenancy  of  lands belonging  to  such  trusts  for  an  educational purpose or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

institutions for public  religious  worship  would  also  be heritable. To examine the correctness or otherwise of this view it  is  necessary  to  emphasis  that Section 54 which makes tenancies  heritable  is  expressly  made  inapplicable   to tenancies of  lands  falling  under Section 129(b).  What is the effect of Section 129 which excludes the application  of Section  54  to  the  tenancies  of  lands belonging to such trusts and institutions?  The obvious  effect  is  that  the provisions is  contained  in Section 54 will not apply.  But is it, also intended thereby that such a tenancy  shall  not be heritable?  The best way to answer this question would be to  see  what  would  be  the  effect of holding that such a tenancy would be otherwise heritable.  First of all, Section 54 makes, if it  all,  only  a  slight  departure  from  the ordinary law  of  succession.    Clause (b) of Section 54(1) provides that if the deceased tenant was not a member of  an undivided  Hindu  family, the tenancy would go to his heirs. Since this is the ordinary law of inheritance, its exclusion must entail exclusion of the ordinary  law  of  inheritance. Sub-section  (3) of Section 54 provides that the interest of an occupancy tenant on his death shall pass  by  inheritance or survivorship according to his personal law.  This also is nothing  but  a statement of the ordinary law of inheritance and succession.  If we were to hold that the ordinary law of succession applies, the result would be,  at  least  in  the case  of  a tenant who is not a member of an undivided Hindu family, and an occupancy tenant, that  his  heirs  would  be entitled to  succeed  to  the  tenancy.    At the same time, exactly the same provision in Section 54(1 )(b) and  Section 54(3) would   not   apply!      This   would   lead   to   a self-contradictory situation.  It is, therefore, clear  that at  least  for  tenants  of  the  description  falling under Section 54(l)(b) and Section  54(3),  the  ordinary  law  of inheritance  is  not applicable in all cases where tenancies are not governed by Section 54.  The exclusion of Section 54 necessarily   implies   exclusion   of   ordinary   law   of testamentary succession.    Section 54 does not preserve the right of a tenant to make a will bequeathing his tenancy  to a  person of his choice in the case of those tenancies which are governed by Section 54.  Heritability is to be  governed entirely by Section 54.  Therefore, by excluding Section 54, the clear intention is to make such tenancies non-heritable. Section 54(1)(a) makes a slight departure from Hindu Law of Succession.  Inheritance by survivorship is conferred on  all  members  of  the  joint  family instead of only the coparceners.  Therefore, all members  of  the  joint  family male and  female  inherit.    The  provisions  in  the Hindu Succession Act in cases where there are female  heirs  of  a male  having  an  interest in the joint family property, are also not applicable.  The question the legislature  intended that   tenancies  not  covered  by  Section  54(1)(a)  would nevertheless be governed by the ordinary law.  In  our  view Section 54(1)(b)  or Section 54(3).  The entire section must be read harmoniously.  The  legislative  intention  as  seen from  the  scheme of Section 54 is, that heritability of any tenancy falling within the definition off  that  term  under the  Tenancy  Act of 1958 is governed exclusively by Section 54.  Where Section 54 us made expressly non-applicable under the Tenancy Act of 1958, the tenancy  us  not  heritable  at all.   An  express  provision  in the Act which excludes the operation of certain provisions, cannot be made nugatory  by resorting to general law. This conclusion is strengthened  by  the  fact  that Section  37  which  forms  a  part  of  Chapter  II  is also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

expressly excluded from application to the tenancies of such trust. Section 37 provides as follows :         "37. Save as provided  in  this  Act,  the         rights  and privileges of any tenant under         any usage or law for  the  time  being  in         force  or  arising  out  of  any contract,         grant, decree  or  order  of  a  court  or         otherwise  howsoever, shall not be limited         or abridged." Therefore,   in  the  case  of  tenancies  of  such  trusts, preservation of rights and privileges of a tenant under  any law for the time being in force is excluded.  Therefore, the rights  and  privileges of any tenant of such land belonging to a  trust  or  religious  institution  would  only  be  as prescribed under  the  Tenancy Act 1958.  A resort cannot be had to any  other  law  for  the  time  being  in  force  to determine their rights and privileges. Learned   counsel   for  the  respondents  drew  our attention to the decision in the case of Gian Devi Anand  v. Jeevan Kumar and  Ors.    [(1985) 2 SCC 583).  The Court has observed in that case that in the absence of  any  provision in  the  Act  the  ordinary  law  of succession would apply. However, under the Bombay Tenancy Act of 1958, there  is  an express  provision  which excludes from the ambit of Section 54, tenancies of institutions  covered  by  Section  129(b). Since Section 54 alone governs the heritability of tenancies covered  by  the Tenancy Act, 1958, the exclusion of Section 54 necessarily implies the exclusion of the ordinary law  of succession  and  inheritance  as  well from the tenancies so excluded.  [See in  this  connection  Ratan  Lal  Adukia  v. Union   of   India   principle  that  a  special  subsequent legislation which is a code in itself excludes  the  earlier general law on the subject.] The  High  Court  was,  therefore, not right when it held that although Section 54 is excluded, the ordinary  law of succession  and  inheritance is not.  And, therefore, the tenancy of  lands  belonging  the  institutions  covered  by Section  129(b) would be heritable under the ordinary law if not under Section 54.  In fact, the Bombay High  Court  from 1958 to 1980 had consistently held the view that the tenancy of a  public  trust was not heritable.  But in 1980 the High Court held  that  Section  40  of  the  Bombay  Tenancy  and Agricultural   Lands   Act   was  not  the  only  source  of inheritance and as such the tenancy of a  public  trust  was heritable under  that  Act.    The present Section 54 is the relevant section as far as lands in the Vidarbha Region  are concerned.   The  Full  Bench upheld the view taken in 1980. In our view,  the  exclusion  of  Section  54  by  necessary implication  also excludes the provisions of ordinary law of succession and inheritance from the tenancy of  agricultural lands of institutions falling under Section 129(b). Section 129 clearly seeks to protect  certain  lands from  the provisions of the tenancy Act of 1958. The section thus protects lands held or leased by a local authority or a university, lands which are the property of a trust  for  an educational  purpose,  hospital,  panjarpole, Gaushala or an institution  for  public  religious  worship,  provided  the entire  income  of such land is appropriate for the purposes of such trust. It also protects lands assigned or donated by any person before the commencement of the said Act  for  the purpose  of  rendering  services  useful  to  the community, namely, maintenance of water works, lighting or  filling  of water  troughs  for  cattle. It also protects any land taken under management by a civil, revenue or  criminal  court  as set  out therein. There is a further safeguard ensuring that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

the income from such lands is appropriated for the  purposes of  a  trust  covered  by  Section  129(b).  The explanation provides for the grant of a  certificate  by  the  collector after  holding  an  inquiry.  thus,  the  clear intention of Section  129  is  to  protect  certain  lands  from  tenancy legislation  where  the  lands  or income from such lands is being utilised for public purposes set out  there.  In  this context,   if  the  tenancy  of  such  lands  are  not  made heritable, this would  clearly  be  in  furtherance  of  the purpose of exempting such lands under Section 129. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in each of the appeals.  There shall, however, be no order as to costs.