JUDGMENT - (1) These two writ petitions involve a common question of law and can be conveniently decided by a common judgment. The question involved is whether the right of a certificated landlord to apply under section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for possession of land from an excluded tenant is personal to the certificated landlord and lapses on his death or whether it can be exercised by his successor in interest.

(2) The facts involved are very simple. In Special Civil Application No. 1878 of 1964 one Ramchandra obtained a certificate under section 88C of the said Act. After his death his widow, who is the petitioner before us, gave notice terminating the tenancy of the excluded tenant and applied for possession of the leased land under section 33B on 27th March 1962. Her application was allowed by the Tenancy Aval Karkun and the decision was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Collector. The Manarashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside these decisions and dismissed the petitioners application on the ground that she was not entitled to apply for possession under section 33B as she was not herself a certificated landlord. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this decision of the Revenue Tribunal.

(3) In Special Civil Application No. 1962 of 1964 a certificate under section 88C was obtained by a widow Vithabai. On the death of Vithabai in September 1961 the title to the excluded land passed under Vithabais will to her husbands sister Kamalabai, who is the petitioner before us The petitioner gave a notice to the excluded tenant terminating his tenancy of the leased land and filed an application for possession under section 33B on 19th March 1962. The application was allowed by the Tenancy Aval Karkun and the decision was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Collector. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside these decisions and dismissed the petitioners application for possession on the ground that she was not entitled to apply under section 33B as she was not herself a certificated landlord. The validity of this decision of the Revenue Tribunal has been challenged before us by the petitioner.

(4) The Revenue Tribunal delivered a common judgment in these two cases. Under the terms of section 88C a landlord can get a certificate exempting the land leased by him from the provisions contained in sections 32 to 32R if the leased land does not exceed an economic holding and if the total annual income of the landlord including the rent of such land does not exceed Rs. 1,500. The Tribunal emphasised in its judgment that the condition about the total annual income not exceeding Rs. 1,500 is personal to the landlord and would cease to exist on his death. The Tribunal also referred to the definition of the term "certificated landlord" given in section 33A (i) of the Act. According to that definition "Certificated landlord" means "a person who holds a certificate issued to him under sub-section (4) of section 88C but does not include a landlord within the meaning of Chapter III-AA holding a similar certificate. Section 33B provides that certificated landlord can give notice to the excluded tenant terminating the tenancy and can apply for possession of the leased land. The Tribunal referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan. 1958 SCR 360=(AIR 1957 SC 907), where their Lordships pointed out that if the words used in a Statue are capable of only one construction then it is not open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act and that it is only when the words are capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy and object of the Act can legitimately arise. According to the Tribunal the words employed by the Legislature are capable of only one construction, viz. That the right given to a small holder under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document