A tenant's statement before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he was not a tenant and was not in possession of the land did not amount to a surrender of his tenancy.

Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - SECTION 32-G, 15, 29, 68, 70 - SUMMARY EVICTION - TENANT'S STATEMENT OF SURRENDER OF TENANCY - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - POWER OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a tenant, stated before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he was not in possession of the land on the tillers day and was not a tenant. The Tribunal dropped the proceedings under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. The respondent later took forcible possession of the land. The petitioner, the landlord, instituted proceedings under Section 84 of the Tenancy Act for summary eviction and possession of the land. The Collector ordered eviction, but the Revenue Tribunal held that the summary eviction was unjustified as the respondent was a tenant and had a right to re-enter the land.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondent's statement before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he was not a tenant and was not in possession of the land did not amount to a surrender of his tenancy. The court also held that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had no power to declare that the respondent was not a tenant. The court further held that the termination of tenancy by virtue of surrender should be in accordance with Section 15 of the Tenancy Act and possession by a landlord should be in accordance with Section 29.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent's statement before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he was not a tenant and was not in possession of the land amounted to a surrender of his tenancy. 2. Whether the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had the power to declare that the respondent was not a tenant. 3. Whether the termination of tenancy by virtue of surrender should be in accordance with Section 15 of the Tenancy Act and possession by a landlord should be in accordance with Section 29.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent's statement before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he was not a tenant and was not in possession of the land did not amount to a surrender of his tenancy because: a) The statement was made in the context of proceedings under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act, which dealt with the determination of the price of land to be paid by the respondent as a deemed purchaser. b) The statement was not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Tenancy Act for the surrender of tenancy. c) The Agricultural Lands Tribunal had no power to declare that the respondent was not a tenant. 2. The court held that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had no power to declare that the respondent was not a tenant because: a) Section 68 of the Tenancy Act, which sets out the powers of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, does not include the power to declare that a person is or is not a tenant. b) The power to decide whether a person is or is not a tenant is vested in the Mamlatdar under Section 70 of the Tenancy Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule with costs.

JUDGMENT - 1. The petitioner-landlord is the owner of S. No. 270/1-A-1-B admeasuring 30 gunthas assessed at 12 paise. The lands are situate in village Palse in district Nasik. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called "the Tenancy Act") were instituted in the year 1960. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal wanted to determine the price of land to be paid by the respondent. The respondent in those proceedings gave a statement stating that he was not in possession of the land on 1-4-1957 and that he was also not a tenant of the said land at that time. In consequence of that statement the Mamlatdar by his order dated 27-10-1960 dropped the proceedings. Later on the respondent filed an appeal against this order stating that there was some misunderstanding on his part while giving the statement. While the appeal was pending before the Deputy Collector the respondent is alleged to have taken forcible possession of the suit land in the year 1961-62. The Deputy Collector confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar on 27-11-1963 and dismissed the appeal.

2. The Mamlatdar also started proceedings in 1964 under Section 32-B of the Tenancy Act and awarded possession to the petitioner on 1-10-1964. The respondent filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, but the Collector held that this appeal was not competent because he was not a tenant of the land. The petitioner now says that the respondent is in unauthorised possession of the land.

3. As the respondent was in unauthorised possession of the land the petitioner instituted the proceedings under Section 84 of the Tenancy Act for summary eviction and for possession of the land, before the Collector. The Collector ordered eviction of the respondent in view of the decision in the proceedings under Sections 32-G and 32-B of the Tenancy Act, which had taken place before. The respondent filed a revision application before the Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the summary eviction of the respondent was unjustified as he was a tenant of the land and he had a right to re-enter the land. This order of revision is now sought to be set aside by the petitioner.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner by Mr.Mandalik that the respondent cannot have any right of re-entry because he had given a statement before the Tribunal in S. 32-G proceedings that he was not in possession of the land on 1-4-1957 the tillers day; nor was he a tenant of the same. According to him the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had dropped the proceedings stating that he was not a tenant because of his statement before the Tribunal. It is, therefore, argued that when the proceedings under Section 32-G were dropped and the respondent was held not to be a tenant, the respondent cannot turn round and challenge the order of eviction because he was occupying the lands unauthorisedly. The order according to Mr.Mandalik, the learned advocate for the petitioner of the Deputy Collector under Section 84 was therefore proper. The observation of the Revenue Tribunal according to Mr.Mandalik, that the respondent was a tenant in the record of rights and that he had a right of re-entry is not based on any law.

5. Now Section 32 of the Tenancy Act declares the tenant as a deemed purchaser of the land, which he holds as a tenant on 1st April 1957, the tillers day. Every tenant is deemed to have purchased from his landlord on 1st of April, 1957 the land free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on that day. The person who becomes a deemed purchaser should be a permanent tenant and should cultivate the land personally and if he is not a permanent tenant he should be the person who cultivates the land. Now we have other sections relating to the deemed purchase. Under Section 32-G after the tillers day the Tribunal shall publish a public notice in the prescribed form in each village calling upon the tenants, who under Section 32 are deemed to have purchased land and landlords of su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis