Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1961 Supreme(SC) 382

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1st December,1961
S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
1. Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype (In C. A. No. 258 of 59) 2. Babasaheb Udhav Mangire and another (In C.A.No.259 of 59) 3. Mohanlal Kasturchand Vora (In C.A. No. 9 of 60) and 4. Dhananjaya Dhondo Kulkarni and others (In C. A. No. 404 of 60) Appellants
Versus
1. Aba Maruti Mali and others (In C.A. No. 258 of 59) 2. Martand Tatyaba Mandlik and another (In C. A. No. 259 of 59) 3. Dinkarrao Nanasaheb Mane (In C. A. No. 9 of 60) and 4. Mahamed Nabibhai Kalwat (In C. A. No. 404 of 60), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 258-259 of 1959 and 9 and 404 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
M/s. V. M. Limaye and V. L. Narasimha Moorthy, Mrs. E. Udayaratnam and Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocates, for Appellants (in all the Appeals); M/s. B. C. Kamble and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 (In C. A. No. 258 of 59); Mr. S. G. Patwardhan, Senior Advocate (M/s. B. C. Kamble and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates, with him), for Respondents No. 1 (In C. A. No. 259 of 59) and the Respondent (In C.A. No. 404 of 60); Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Respondent (In C. A. No. 9 of 60).

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.C.KAMBLE, E.UDAYARATHNAM, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.G.PATVARDHAN, S.S.SHUKLA, V.L.NARASIMHAMURTY, V.M.LIMAYA

Statutory provisions take precedence over equitable principles, and a tenant cannot be granted relief against termination of tenancy under a statutory provision based solely on equitable considerations.

Headnote:
LANDLORD TENANT - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 5, 14, 25, 29 - TERMINATION OF TENANCY - RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE - EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES - STATUTORY RIGHT TO POSSESSION - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 114 - INCONSISTENCY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Landlords filed appeals challenging the orders of lower authorities refusing to grant them possession of their lands held by tenants, despite termination of tenancies due to non-payment of rent for three years. The authorities had granted relief to the tenants based on equitable principles, considering it unjust to evict them for mere rent default.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the authorities erred in granting relief on equitable principles as the tenancies were terminated under a statutory provision, conferring a statutory right to possession on the landlords. The Court interpreted Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and held that a tenant who had been granted relief under Section 25(1) for a year's default in rent payment could still be considered as having failed to pay rent for that year for the purposes of Section 25(2). The Court found Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Bombay Act and, therefore, inapplicable to the tenancies in question.
Issues: 1. Whether equitable principles can be applied to grant relief against termination of tenancy under a statutory provision? 2. Whether a tenant granted relief under Section 25(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for a year's default in rent payment can be considered as having failed to pay rent for that year for the purposes of Section 25(2)? 3. Whether Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is applicable to tenancies governed by the Bombay Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Equitable principles cannot override statutory provisions. In this case, the tenancies were terminated under a statutory provision, and the landlords had a statutory right to possession. Therefore, the authorities could not grant relief to the tenants on equitable grounds. 2. Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, does not exclude a year of default for which relief was granted under Section 25(1) from being counted towards the three years of default required for termination of tenancy. The relief under Section 25(1) only prevents the termination of tenancy for that particular year, but the default itself remains. 3. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is inconsistent with the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and therefore, cannot be applied to the tenancies governed by the latter Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the lower authorities, and directed the tenants to hand over possession of the lands to the landlords.

Judgment

SARKAR, J. : These four appeals are by landlords whose applications to the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for possession of the lands held by their tenants, on the ground that the tenancies had been terminated by due notices on the tenants failure to pay rents for three years, were dismissed.

2. These authorities refused in three of these cases to make an order for possession either because the tenants had paid up all rent which had fallen in arrear or because the authorities thought it proper on the facts of the case to give them time to pay up. They felt that the tenants were entitled to relief against forfeiture on equitable principles. In the fourth case, which is covered by Civil Appeal No. 259 of 1959, it was held that there had not been on the facts of the case default in payment of rent for three years and, therefore, the tenant was entitled to statutory relief against eviction under S. 25 (1) of the Act which we shall later set out.

3. The High Court at Bombay by a summary order, without stating any reasons, refused to interfere when moved under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The landlords have therefore filed these appeals with leave of this Court.

4. We shall now deal with the first three cases and later take up the fourth case. In these three cases relief was granted to the tenants on the basis of certain observation of the High Court at Bombay in Sitaram Vithal Chitnis v. Gundu Satyappa Dhade, Special Civil Appln. No. 1695 of 1955, (Bom) unreported, which we quote here: "Every court of equity will be extremely reluctant to enforce an order of ejectment against a tenant when the only ground on which the landlord seeks ejectment is failure to pay rent. Therefore, if the tentant is willing to pay all arrears of rent, in our opinion, it would be inequitable to turn these tenants out when they are prepared to make good the arrears of rent." With great respect to the learned Judges of the High Court, we are unable to assent to the proposition so broadly put.

5. We now set out the relevant provisions of the Act.

Section 5 (1). No tenancy of any land shall be for a period of less than ten years :

Provided that at the end of the said period and thereafter at the end of each period of ten years in succession, the tenancy shall, subject to the provisions of sub-secs. (2) and (3), be deemed to be renewed for a further period of ten years on the same terms and conditions notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

(2)........ ......... ........ ..........

3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1) :

(a) every tenancy shall, subject to the provisions of Ss. 24 and 25, be liable to be terminated at any time on any of the grounds mentioned in S. 14.

....... ......... ........ ..........

........ ......... ........ ..........

Section 14(1) Notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree, or order of a court of law, the tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall not be terminated unless such tenant :-

(a)(1) has failed to pay in any year within fifteen days from the day fixed. . . :. .the rent of such land for that year,

........ ......... ........ ..........

Provided that no tenancy of any land held by a tenant be terminated on any of the grounds mentioned in this sub-section, unless the landlord gives three months notice in writing intimating the tenant his decision to terminate the tenancy and the ground for such termination.

Section 25(1) Where any tenancy of any land held by any tenant is terminated for non-payment of rent and the landlord files any proceeding to eject the tenant, the Mamlatdar shall call upon the tenant to tender to the landlord the rent in arrears together with the costs of the proceeding within fifteen days from the date of order, and if the tenant complies with such order, the Mamlatdar shall, in lieu of making an order for ejectment, pass an order that the tenancy had not been terminated, and thereupon the tenant shall hold t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document