1. Landlord sought resumption of leased agricultural land for personal cultivation under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, following termination notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1073
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Keshav Bhaurao Yeole (D) By Lrs. - Appellants
Versus
Muralidhar (D) & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.11104 of 2014
Decided on : 19-10-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv.
The landlord's entitlement to resume land for personal cultivation is subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 33B(5)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In cases of joint tenancies, the computation of land to be restored to the landlord must be done by notionally dividing the leased land among the joint tenants and allocating the respective shares based on the principles laid down in the case of Chunnilal Bhailal Wani.
Headnote:
The relevant provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 include Section 2(2D), Section 2(6A), Section 4B, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 29, Section 31, Section 31A, Section 31B, Section 33B, and Section 43A. The Court also considered the amended notification dated 08/10/1969, which exempted certain leases from the provisions of the Act. The Court interpreted these provisions to determine the landlord's entitlement to resume land for personal cultivation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants are the legal heirs of the original landlord who sought to recover possession of leased lands for personal cultivation. The notice for termination of tenancy was issued only in respect of one of the leased lands. The original authority allowed the application of the landlord and directed the restoration of 22 acres of land. The appellate authority upheld the findings but modified the extent of land to be restored to 17 acres. The revisional authority remanded the case to the original authority for framing issues. The High Court set aside all orders and ordered remand before the original authority to consider the matter afresh. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the landlord is entitled to 8.34 acres of land in Survey No. 291 for personal cultivation.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, including Section 31, Section 31A, Section 31B, Section 33B, and Section 43A. The Court also considered the amended notification dated 08/10/1969, which exempted certain leases from the provisions of the Act. The Court interpreted the provisions and held that the landlord's entitlement to resume land is subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 33B(5)(b). The Court also clarified the computation of land to be restored to the landlord in cases of joint tenancies. The Court set aside the remand order passed by the High Court and determined the extent of land to be restored to the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: The landlord is entitled to 8.34 acres of land in Survey No. 291 for personal cultivation. The computation of land to be restored to the landlord in cases of joint tenancies must be done by notionally dividing the leased land among the joint tenants and allocating the respective shares based on the principles laid down in the case of Chunnilal Bhailal Wani. The remand order passed by the High Court was set aside.
Result: The appeal was allowed and the landlord was entitled to 8.34 acres of land in Survey No. 291 for personal cultivation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over validity of termination notices, whether landlord's holding exceeded one economic unit, and whether heirs must prove bonafide requirement afresh after landlord's death. (Para 14 , 15 )
3. Land leased to tenants is not held by the landlord; bonafide requirement is determined at the application date; equal area must be maintained for personal cultivation. (Para 16 , 23 , 24 , 29 )
4. Economic holding excludes leased land; bonafide requirement is fixed at the application date; Section 33B(5)(b) mandates equal area for personal cultivation between parties. (Para 23 , 25 , 29 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; appellants granted possession of specific acreage in one survey number; rights regarding other lands preserved. (Para 31 )
6. Does land leased to tenants count towards a landlord's economic holding?
No. The court held that holding refers to land lawfully possessed as an owner or tenant. Land leased to tenants is not held by the landlord as an owner or tenant and is thus excluded from the economic holding calculation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
7. Must the heirs of a deceased landlord prove bonafide requirement for personal cultivation afresh?
No. The crucial date for deciding the bonafides of the requirement is the date of the application for eviction. Subsequent events, such as the death of the landlord, do not require the heirs to prove the requirement afresh. (Para 29 )
8. How is the extent of land to be resumed determined under Section 33B(5)(b)?
The landlord is entitled to resume only so much land that results in both the landlord and the tenant holding an equal total area for personal cultivation, accounting for all land held by each party. (Para 25 , 26 , 28 )
9. Can a landlord recover possession of lands not specifically mentioned in the termination notice?
No. The scope of adjudication is limited to the land specifically mentioned in the termination notice; without a valid notice, the authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for resumption of that land. (Para 10 , 16 )
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. The appellants are the legal heirs of original landlord, Keshav Bhaurao Yeole (hereinafter referred to as “landlord” for ease of reference). Survey No. 291 (admeasuring 26 acres 13 guntas) and Survey No. 290/1 & 290/2 (admeasuring 8 acres 21 guntas) had been given on lease to Respondent Nos. 2 & 5 (now deceased) namely Murlidhar Damodar Modhave & Bhausaheb Damodar Modhave and Respondent No.1 namely Kundalik Damodar Modhave (now deceased) respectively, (hereinafter referred to as “tenants”) through two separate lease deeds dated 30.08.1962, for a period of 13 years. The lease in respect of Survey No. 291 was specifically executed for cultivation of sugarcane crop, whereas the lease for Survey No.290/1 & 290/2 were for cultivation, generally.
2. On the expiration of the tenure of the lease, a notice (dated 05.09.1975) for termination of tenancy (hereinafter referred to as ‘notice’) had been issued to the tenants. The landlord sought to recover possession for the purpose of personal cultivation. It was stated in the notice that the tenanted land was the principal source of income for the family and that their livelihood was dependent on the cultivation of such lands. It is critical to note at the very outset that the notice pertained to land bearing Survey No.291 only and no separate notice of termination of tenancy was issued in respect of land bearing Survey No. 290/1 & 290/2.
3. Since the tenant did not voluntarily relinquish his possession in response to the notice, the landlord initiated proceedings, 1[Tenancy Case No. 2/1977] for resumption of tenanted lands before the Court of Tenancy Awal Karkun, Rahuri (hereinafter referred to as ‘original authority’) under Section 29 read with Section 43A(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 19482[The Act has since been renamed as the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 by Maharashtra Act 24 of 2012]. (for short ‘the Act’). Through these proceedings, the landlord had sought to recover possession of lands leased under both lease deeds, that is, Survey No. 291 and Survey No. 290/1 & 290/2.
4. In order to decide the lis, the original authority had framed four issues for consideration. The issues framed and summary of findings in respect of each issue are tabulated hereinbelow for ease of reference:
| Issues | Findings |
| 1. Whether the applicant is the landlord of the suit land? | Yes, suit lands were owned by applicant. |
| 2. Whether the opponents are the tenants of the suit land? | Only Opponents no. 1,2,5 are tenants of the land in dispute; no evidence led to prove that there was a partition in the joint family of the tenants |
| 3. Whether the notices for termination of tenancy are served upon the opponents and are valid one? | Yes, notice for termination of tenancy had been served on Opponents no. 1,2,3 on 24.10.75, 24.9.75 and 30.9.75 respectively and notice is a valid notice |
| 4. Whether the landlord requires the suit lands? | Yes, landlord has proved that he requires land for bonafide personal cultivation |
5. Ultimately, the original authority allowed the application of the landlord3[Order dated 17.04.1978 in Tenancy Case No.2/77] and directed that 22 acres of the suit lands4[Sum total of land bearing Survey No. 291 and Survey No. 290/1& 290/2] (33 acres 21 guntas) was to be restored to him. The direction for restoration of 22 acres of the suit land was on the premise that the applicant (landlord) was ‘entitled for possession of so much of land as would result in both the landlord and tenants holding thereafter in the total and equal area for personal cultivation’. The reasoning of the original authority in this regard is extracted below:
“The lands held by the opponents individually are measuring (23 ac. 29 gts. 9H. 83 R.) The land held by applicant is 13A 11 Gts. The applicant is entitled for possession of so much of the land as would result in both the lan
