1972 Supreme(Bom) 65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Kotval, C.J., Chandrachud Y.V. and Deshmukh B.N., JJ.
Appellants: Devidas Narayan More and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Chunilal Bhailal Wani and Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 1484 of 1965 with Spl. C. As. 890 and 891 of 1967 and 24 of 1968 Decided On: 28.04.1972
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P.S. Warke, H.D. Gole and P.T. Patil, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: G.M. Bhokrikar, V.N. Ganpule and P.T. Patil, Advs.

The words "in the total" in Section 33-B(5)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, mean "on the whole" or "in the aggregate". The entire holding of the landlord and the tenant should be taken into consideration while computing the area for personal cultivation.

Headnote:

BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 33-B(5)(B) - INTERPRETATION - LANDS HELD BY TENANT FOR PERSONAL CULTIVATION - COMPUTATION - EQUALITY OF HOLDINGS - JOINT LANDLORDS OR JOINT TENANTS - DIFFICULTIES IN IMPLEMENTATION - STARE DECISIS.

Fact of the Case:

The landlord had leased out his lands to two sets of tenants. The tenants had other lands of their own. The landlord applied for possession of the leased lands under Section 33-B(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Tenancy Aval Karkun and the Special Deputy Collector dismissed the landlord's application. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and held that the landlord was entitled to get back certain portions of the land leased to the tenants. The tenants filed a Special Civil Application challenging the order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench referred three questions to the Full Bench for decision.

Finding of the Court:

The Full Bench held that the words "in the total" in Section 33-B(5)(b) of the Act mean "on the whole" or "in the aggregate". The entire holding of the landlord and the tenant should be taken into consideration while computing the area for personal cultivation. The landlord can get back only the land leased at the most. The result should be equality of areas for personal cultivation of both the tenant and the landlord. In cases of joint landlords or joint tenants, a notional division of the leased land will have to be made and the distribution should take place on that basis.

Issues: 1. If the application under Section 33-B is made by more than one landlord which, of course, of necessity, must be landlords jointly holding the same piece of land, are the other lands in the personal cultivation of all the landlords, jointly or even individually, to be taken into consideration for the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 33-B when applying its provision and particularly the one contained in the words "in the total"? 2. When the application under Section 33-B has been made against a single tenant, are the lands in the personal cultivation of that tenant other than those in respect of which the application has been made to be taken into consideration for the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 33-B when applying its provision and particularly the one contained in the words "in the total"? 3. (a) In the case of an application made under Section 33-B, if the same landlord or the same joint landlords have let out their lands to more than one tenant and each of the said tenants is personally cultivating the lands respectively let out to him, are the lands of all such tenants other than the lands in respect of which the application has been made to be taken into consideration for the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section ((5) of Section 33-B when applying its provision and particularly the one contained in the words "in the total"? (b) Would any difference have to be made if the application is made only against one tenant or if the application is made either at the same time or jointly against more than one of such tenants of the same landlord or landlords?

Ratio Decidendi: The interpretation of Section 33-B(5)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as laid down in Rambhau Ganpat Sutar v. Bhau Tatyaba Patole, (1964) 66 Bom LR 1, is correct and should be followed. The words "in the total" in the said provision mean "on the whole" or "in the aggregate". The entire holding of the landlord and the tenant should be taken into consideration while computing the area for personal cultivation. The landlord can get back only the land leased at the most. The result should be equality of areas for personal cultivation of both the tenant and the landlord. In cases of joint landlords or joint tenants, a notional division of the leased land will have to be made and the distribution should take place on that basis.

Final Decision: Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (a) were answered in the affirmative. So far as question No.3 (b) is concerned, it was held that if there is only one tenant, only the land held under personal cultivation of that tenant will have to be taken into account on the landlord applying.