1. Rent arrears dispute — Applicability of Section 25(1) versus Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Punchhi : S.C.Sen
Hari Sakharam Dhanavate
Versus
A.N.Patil Tukarane
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 11/14/95
Advocates Appeared: Choudhary K.R. : Krishnamurthy V. : Sharma Rakesh K. : Wad J.S.
Advocates:
J.S.VAD, K.R.CHOUDHARY, RAKESH K.SHARMA, V.KRISHNAMURTHY
J.S.VAD, K.R.CHOUDHARY, RAKESH K.SHARMA, V.KRISHNAMURTHY
Under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, if a tenant is in arrears for three years and the landlord provides timely intimation, Section 25(2) mandates ejectment, overriding the remedial payment relief available under Section 25(1).
Headnote:(A) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 25(1) and 25(2) - Non-payment of rent - Distinction between remedial relief and ejectment - Section 25(1) enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against termination of tenancy by facilitating payment of rent within 15 days from the date of the order - Section 25(2) provides an exception where, if a tenant is in arrears for any three years and the landlord gives intimation within 3 months of each default, ejectment must follow and the remedial provisions under Section 25(1) cannot be invoked. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose as to whether a tenant was in arrears of rent beyond three years and whether the action for ejectment should be governed by Section 25(1) or Section 25(2) of the relevant Act. The High Court had found that the case was covered under Section 25(2), thereby denying the tenant the opportunity to save the tenancy through the payment of arrears within 15 days.
Findings of Court:
The High Court provided adequate reasons to conclude that the case fell under Section 25(2), and consequently, the Mamlatdar was not permitted to proceed under Section 25(1).
Issues: Whether the tenant's default in rent payment fell under the remedial provisions of Section 25(1) or the mandatory ejectment provisions of Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Ratio Decidendi: If a tenant is in arrears for any three years and the landlord has provided the required intimation within three months of each default, the case is governed by Section 25(2), which precludes the tenant from seeking the remedial relief of payment within 15 days provided under Section 25(1).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the tenant is entitled to relief under Section 25(1) or if the case falls under the exception in Section 25(2) necessitating ejectment. (Para 1 )
3. Section 25(1) allows relief via payment within 15 days, whereas Section 25(2) mandates ejectment if arrears persist for three years following proper intimation. (Para 2 )
4. Where a tenant is in arrears for three years and the landlord provided timely intimation, Section 25(2) applies, barring relief under Section 25(1). (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. What is the distinction between Section 25(1) and Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?
Section 25(1) enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against termination by allowing the tenant to pay rent arrears within 15 days. Section 25(2) is an exception where ejectment follows if the tenant is in arrears for any three years and the landlord provided timely intimation. (Para 2 )
7. Can a tenant seek relief under Section 25(1) if the conditions of Section 25(2) are met?
No, if the case is covered under Section 25(2) due to arrears for three years and proper intimation by the landlord, the remedial provisions under Section 25(1) cannot be used to save the tenancy. (Para 2 )
8. What is the requirement for a landlord to invoke the exception under Section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?
The landlord must provide an intimation to the tenant regarding the failure to pay rent within a period of three months of each default for any three years. (Para 2 )
(1) THE narrow point before the High court as also before the Revenue Authorities was whether the appellant-tenant was in arrears of rent beyond 3 years and could action be taken under Section 25(1 or 25(2 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
(2) THE distinction between the two provisions is apparent. Section 25(1 enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against termination of tenancy for non- payment of rent by facilitating payment of rent on call to the tenant to pay it directly to the landlord or in court with costs of the proceedings within 15 days from the date of the order, and on failure of which to suffer an ejectment. In contrast, Section 25(2 carves out an exception that if the tenant is in arrears on his failure to pay rent for any three years, the landlord has to give an intimation to that effect to the tenant within a period of 3 months of each default, and then ejectment must follow as a consequence and the remedial provision under Section 25(1 cannot come to the rescue of the tenant. The finding recorded by the High court is that the instant was a case covered under Section 25(2 and that the Mamlatdar could not proceed under Section 25(1 permitting the tenant to save the tenancy on payment of arrears of rent within 15 days of the order. The High court has given adequate reasons to come to that view. We see no justification to alter the same.
(3) THE appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
(4) THERE shall be no order as to costs.
