The provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, do not freely apply to tenancies under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, as the Act has its own provisions for termination of tenancies.

Headnote:
LANDLORD-TENANT - TERMINATION OF TENANCY - NOTICE - VALIDITY - SECTION 38(3)(D) OF THE BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS(VIDARBHA REGION) ACT, 1958 - EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN LANDS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT - SECTION 129(C) - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - OBJECT AND SCHEME OF THE ACT - CHAPTER V OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - APPLICABILITY TO TENANCIES UNDER THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:

A land-holder filed an application under section 36 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, claiming possession of the property, alleging that the tenant was not entitled to the land. The tenant contested the claim, asserting that he had been cultivating the land for 40 years and that the land-holder had no right to it. The revenue authorities rejected the land-holder's application, holding that the notice under section 38 of the Act was not maintainable as it was given after the prescribed period and that the land-holder's ownership was not finally decided.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the land-holder had failed to establish that the land in question was exempted from the operation of the Act under section 129(c), which exempts certain lands from the provisions of the Act, including lands assigned or donated for the purpose of rendering services useful to the community, such as maintenance of water works or filling of water troughs for cattle. The court also found that the notice given by the land-holder under section 38(3)(d) of the Act was not valid as it was given after the prescribed period. Furthermore, the court held that Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which deals with the termination of tenancies, does not freely apply to tenancies under the Act, as the Act has its own provisions for termination of tenancies.
Issues: 1. Whether the land in question was exempted from the operation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, under section 129(c). 2. Whether the notice given by the land-holder under section 38(3)(d) of the Act was valid. 3. Whether Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, applies to tenancies under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the land in question was not exempted from the operation of the Act under section 129(c) as the land-holder had failed to establish that the land was assigned or donated for the purpose of rendering services useful to the community. 2. The court held that the notice given by the land-holder under section 38(3)(d) of the Act was not valid as it was given after the prescribed period. 3. The court held that Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not freely apply to tenancies under the Act, as the Act has its own provisions for termination of tenancies.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the land-holder's petition, holding that the land-holder had failed to establish that the land in question was exempted from the operation of the Act, that the notice given by the land-holder under section 38(3)(d) of the Act was not valid, and that Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not freely apply to tenancies under the Act.

JUDGMENT - MOHATA V., J. : - This is a land-holders petition challenging findings recorded by revenue authorities to the effect that landlords application for possession of land was not maintainable.

2. The petitioner is a managing trustee of one trust known as “Shri Datta Sansthan, Belaj, Taluqa Achalpur, District Amravati”. The allegation is that though it is contended that it is a duly registered trust, nowhere there is even a whisper as to for what purpose the trust has been created and how the income of the land is appropriated for the purpose of the trust. On behalf of this Trust, a notice dated 21-9-1968 was given under the provisions of section 38(3), (d) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as the Act) which has been admittedly received by the tenant on 25-9-1968. On that basis, on 27-5-1969, an application under section 36 of the Act was filed at the behest of the land-holder claiming possession of the property.

3. It may be mentioned at this very stage that in the application, the purpose or the consideration for which the land was leased, how the property came to be in possession of the trust and for what purpose is not mentioned.

4. The case of the tenant Deorao(since deceased) the original respondent in this petition is that he is on the land as a lessee since last 40 years of the joint family of one Motilal of village Belaj, that he has been cultivating the land as tenant since then, and that the Trust has nothing to do with the property.

5. Some documents are produced on record from which it appears that before 20th December 1952, the property belonged to the family of Motilal and on that day there was a partition under which the property came to be recorded in the name of Motilal. The name of Deorao is shown as a tenant and this entry has been recorded on 28-11-1958. It is clearly mentioned that the tenancy is on the basis of the lease money as per law. The other document, entry in which seems to have been made on 28-1-1967, makes a mention that said Shri Motilal had orally gifted the property in favour of the Trust for the purposes of filling of water troughs for cattle. It is also recorded that Deorao was a tenant and the only consideration for the lease was filling the troughs and to pay the land revenue. Apart from the fact that even as per this entry, it is a case of transfer on the basis of oral gift which is not recognised in law, there is no mention as to when such an alleged oral gift took place and how the change in the consideration of lease took place. Any way, as per the documents on record, the entry has been made on 18-1-1967, i.e. after the commencement of the Act. On behalf of the land-holder, petitioner Janrao only entered into the witness-box and the so called donor was not examined and this is in the face of the clear denial by the tenant even in a reply to the notice that the Trust had nothing to do with the property and that real owner was Shri Motilal. Even in his deposition, there is no mention about the period and purpose for which the so called gift had taken place nor there is a mention that doing this service was the consideration of the lease vis-a-vis the tenant. The list of the property of the Trust which has to be mandatorily maintained even in terms of the Bombay Public Trust Act is also not filed on record.

6. It appears that as regards ownership, some litigation was pending. It is in the cross-examination that even though he has come up with a story that the oral gift took place as far back as in the year 1936 no efforts were made to record the field property in Government papers as the property of the Trust. There is a reference to the lease money which would also falsify the story about the consideration of the lease not being money. It is admitted that Trust was never in cultivating possession of the property.

7. The Tenancy Naib Tahsildar, Achalpur, rejected the application holding that the ownership of the applicant wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document