IMPORTANT POINT
After a landlord has been granted an exemption certificate under Section 88-C(4) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 and he has complied with conditions of Section 33-B within the specified time, the application of the excluded tenant under Section 88-D(1)(iv) of the Act for revocation of exemption certificate cannot be entertained.

Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Section 88-C(4) r/w 88-D(1)(iv)-Exemption Certificate under Section 88-C(4) granted in 1972 when landlord s income was less than 1500/- -Landlord dying-LR s of landlord making application for possession after termination of tenancy under Section 33(3)(b) r/w 29 of Act in 1979-Therein LR s of tenant applying under Section 88-D for revocation as income increases more than 1500/- -Whether maintainable?-Additional Commissioner holding (No)-High Court holding Yes-Appeal against-Whether High Court was right? (No)-Case law referred-Appeal allowed.
       Held : The words employed in clause (iv), noted above, are, "the annual income of the person has exceeded Rs. 1500/-". They imply that even if on April 1, 1957 the total income was not exceeding Rs. 1500/- but subsequently it has exceeded that amount as on the date of the revocation application, clause (iv) will be attracted. Therefore, the first contention of Mr. Bhasme cannot but be rejected. (Para 7)
       But held the germane question that arises for consideration is : whether the application of the respondents under Section 88D(1)(iv), for revocation of the exemption certificate granted under Section 88C(4), filed after termination of their tenancy by issuing notice and filing of application for possession of the land by the appellant, under Section 33B read with Section 29, is maintainable. (Para 9)
       In our view, it will, therefore, be just and reasonable to hold that after a certificated landlord has complied with the provisions of Section 33B within the specified time, the application of the excluded tenant under Section 88D(1)(iv) for revocation of certificate cannot be entertained. (Para 27)
       In this view of the matter, we cannot sustain the order of the High Court under challenge; the order under challenge is set aside and the order of the Additional Commissioner is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed; in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. (Para 33)

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Bombay, allowing Writ Petition No. 1560 of 1981, filed by the respondents, on July 19, 1991.

2. Before adverting to the contentions of the parties it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant facts. The predecessor-in- interest of the appellants was the landlord of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 238/1 measuring acres 2 and guntas 5 in village Kalgaon, District Satara, Maharashtra State (for short, the land ). He filed tenancy case No. 252/61 before the Tenancy Aval Karkun Karad (for short, the Mamlatdar ) against Vyanku Daji Chavan, the tenant of the land, claiming exemption certificate under sub-section (4) of Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1946 (all sections referred to in this judgment are of the said Act unless otherwise stated). During the pendency of the tenancy case both the landlord as well as the tenant died. The appellants are the legal representatives of the landlord and the respondents are the legal representatives of the tenant. By order dated April 26, 1972 the Mamlatdar granted exemption certificate under sub-section (4) of Section 88C in favour of the appellants. The aggrieved respondents carried the matter in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara Division, who set aside the order of the Mamlatdar by order dated February 25, 1974. The appellants challenged the validity of the said order in the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2526 of 1974. On January 11, 1979 the High Court set aside the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer holding that for purpose of Section 88C the total income of the deceased landlord as on April 1, 1957 should be the criteria and not that of the appellants and thus restored the order of the Mamlatdar by allowing the said writ petition. Immediately thereafter the appellants terminated the tenancy by issuing notice to the respondents on January 27, 1979 and making application to the Mamlatdar for possession of the land for personal cultivation under Section 33B(3)(b) read with Section 29 in March 1979.

3. On August 2, 1979, during the pendency of the said application, the respondents applied under Section 88 D(1)(iv) for revocation of exemption certificate on the ground that the income of the appellants had exceeded Rs. 1500/- per year. The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, having regard to the order of the High Court in the Writ Petition No. 2526 of 1974 dated January 11, 1979, rejected the application of the respondents as not maintainable by order dated January 17, 1981. The respondents assailed the correctness of that order in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1560 of 1981. By the impugned order dated July 19, 1991, the High Court quashed the order of the Additional Commissioner holding that the application for revocation of the certificate was maintainable and remanded the case for fresh disposal on merits. It is that order which is the subject matter of the appeal before us.

4. The first contention of Mr. A.S. Bhasme, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is that as the High Court had restored the order of the Mamlatdar granting exemption certificate in favour of the appellants on the ground that the annual total income of the deceased landlord as on April 1, 1957 was less than Rs. 1,500/- which had become final, therefore, now the income of the appellants cannot be taken into account which would amount to reopening the issue before the Additional Commissioner in proceedings under Section 88D as such the High Court erred in quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner.

5. Mr. V.B. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has argued that Section 88D gives an independent right to the tenant to have the exemption certificate revoked on establishing, inter alia, that the annual income of the landlord had exceeded Rs. 1,500/-, therefor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday