Termination of tenancy under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, requires not only a notice under section 9 but also an order from the Revenue Officer under section 8(1), (g) of the Act, and section 52 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, cannot be invoked to claim restoration of possession if the tenancy was not terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Berar Act.

Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - TERMINATION OF TENANCY - SECTION 9 OF THE BERAR REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL LEASES ACT, 1951 - SECTION 52 OF THE BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS(VIDARBHA REGION) ACT, 1958 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from a tenancy relationship between the petitioner, a landlord, and the respondent, a tenant, over a field property. The landlord served a notice under section 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, to terminate the tenancy, and the tenant voluntarily surrendered possession of the property on the specified date. Subsequently, the landlord sold portions of the property to two purchasers. The tenant filed applications under section 52 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, claiming restoration of possession on the grounds that the landlord had failed to cultivate the land personally and had sold it without obtaining his refusal in writing.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the tenancy was not legally terminated under section 9 of the Berar Act, as the landlord had not obtained an order from the Revenue Officer under section 8(1), (g) of the Act, which was a necessary requirement for valid termination. Therefore, section 52 of the Bombay Act, which provides for restoration of possession to a tenant in certain circumstances, could not be invoked by the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenancy was legally terminated under section 9 of the Berar Act without obtaining an order from the Revenue Officer under section 8(1), (g) of the Act. 2. Whether section 52 of the Bombay Act could be invoked by the respondent to claim restoration of possession, given that the tenancy was not terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Berar Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted section 9 of the Berar Act and section 8(1), (g) of the Act together and held that a valid termination of tenancy required not only a notice under section 9 but also an order from the Revenue Officer under section 8(1), (g). This interpretation was based on the non-obstante clause in section 8(1) and the specific grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) for which a Revenue Officer could grant permission to terminate the tenancy. 2. The court held that section 52 of the Bombay Act could not be invoked by the respondent because the tenancy was not terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Berar Act. The court reasoned that section 52 required the termination of tenancy to be under section 9 of the Berar Act or under specific sections of the Bombay Act, and that the landlord must have taken possession of the land after such termination. Since the tenancy in this case was not terminated in accordance with the Berar Act, the landlord's possession of the property was not considered to be a result of a valid termination, and therefore, section 52 could not be applied.
Final Decision: The court allowed both writ petitions filed by the landlord and the purchasers, quashed the impugned orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and dismissed the respondent's application under section 52 of the Bombay Act.

JUDGMENT - Mohta V., J.: - There is only one common question of law which needs decision in these two writ petitions and hence their disposal by this common judgment.

2. Special Civil Application No. 248 of 1974 is at the instance of original owner of the disputed field property-petitioner No.1 Yeshwant and petitioner No. 2 Damodar the purchaser of a portion thereof. Special Civil

Application No. 249 of 1974 is at the instance of petitioner No. 1 Yeshwant,

the owner and petitioner No.2 Mahadeo the purchaser of we balance of the portion. The respondent Laxman is common in both the petitions, being an erstwhile tenant claiming rights in whole of the subject matter,

namely, field Survey No. 134/1 measuring 9 acres and 29 gunthas of mouz Pimplod, Taluq Daryapur. District Amravali.

3. Though, in the Courts below there were some disputed facts, before me only undisputed facts are stated with a submission that the point arising should be determined on that basis only. Those facts are that right from

the year 1951-52 the field property was in cultivating possession of the respondent. On 9-11-1956 a notice under section 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as “the Berar Act”) was given by the- first petitioner to the respondent. This was a notice purporting to terminate the tenancy with effect from 1-4-1957. On that day, the respondent delivered possession of the property to the first petitioner voluntarly. On 30.4-1962, the first petitioner transferred area admeasuring 2 acres and 29 gunthas of the eastern side, north-south division to Damodar and on 3-9-1967 remaining portion was sold to petitioner Mahadeo. The respondent filed two applications under section 52 of the Bombay Tenancy and, agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958(hereinafter called as “the Bombay Act”) against the original land holder as well as the two purchasers making grievance that the landholder has ceased to cultivate the land personally as mentioned in the notice under section 9 of the Berar Act, and that he was entitled to the restoration of the possession as the sale had taken place without making his refusal in writing as required under section 52 of the

Bombay Act.

4. The tenancy Naib-Tahsildar, Daryapur, who tried both these cases

together disposed of the application by a common order holding that the tenancy was not legally terminated under the provisions of section 9 of the Berar Act and therefore, section 52 of the Bombay Act could not be pressed into service. The respondent moved the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur, in, the revisional jurisdiction and the two revisions came to be allowed by a common order dated 8-5-1973. On the basis of the view of this Court prevailing before 1971 as regards requirement of termination of tenancy under the Berar Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that the notice given under section 9 of the Berar Act had validly terminated the tenancy even without taking recourse to section 8(1), (g). It appears that the attention of the S. D. O. was invited to the case of(Smt. Joharabi v. Member M. R. T.)l 1971 Mh.L.J. 818(F. B.) wherein it was held that without the order of the Revenue Officer under section 8(1), (g) of the Berar Act, the tenancy could not be terminated. That no such order came to be passed was an admitted position: but the learned Such-Divisional Officer, Daryapur, held that inasmuch as this interpretation on combined effect of sections 8 and 9 of the Berar Act was not available on the dates on which Proceedings under section 52 of the Bombay Act were initiated, the interpretation subsequently made Could not come to the rescue of the landlord.

5. The three petitioners moved the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal

under section 111 of the Bombay Act raising various grounds including that the Sub-Divisional Officer bad committed an error in not relying upon recent interpretation of law only because it was made ,subsequent to the filing of the application. The Maharashtra Revenue Tri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis