The proper remedy for a landlord to evict a trespasser from his land is to proceed under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and not under section 29(2) of the Act.

Headnote:
TENANCY - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 84 - SUMMARY EVICTION - APPLICABILITY - SUB-LETTING OF LAND LEASED FOR CULTIVATION OF SUGARCANE - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION - INTERPRETATION - REMEDY OF LANDLORD - SECTION 29(2) OR SECTION 84.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, owners of half portion of a plot of land leased to one Bondre for cultivation of sugarcane, filed an application under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) against the first respondent, a sub-lessee from Bondre, for summary eviction. The Tribunal held that the application was not maintainable and that the proper remedy for the petitioners was to proceed under section 29(2) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the sub-tenancy in favor of the first respondent was invalid under section 27 of the Act, and that the first respondent was a trespasser. The Court further held that the proper remedy for the petitioners was to proceed under section 84 of the Act, as section 29(2) was not applicable to the case.
Issues: 1. Whether section 27 of the Act applied to the plot of land in question, which was leased for cultivation of sugarcane. 2. Whether the sub-tenancy in favor of the first respondent was valid. 3. Whether the proper remedy for the petitioners was to proceed under section 29(2) or section 84 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 43A of the Act provides that certain sections, including section 27, do not apply to leases of lands granted for cultivation of sugarcane. However, the State Government is empowered under section 43A(3) to direct that such leases shall be subject to certain conditions specified in a notification. 2. The Government notification in question incorporated the provisions of section 14(1)(a) of the Act, which includes sub-letting in contravention of section 27 as a ground for termination of tenancy. Therefore, section 27 must be deemed to have been incorporated in the notification. 3. The sub-tenancy in favor of the first respondent was invalid under section 27, as it was in contravention of the provisions of that section. 4. Section 29(2) of the Act provides that a landlord cannot obtain possession of land held by a tenant except under an order of the Mamlatdar. However, the plot of land in question was not held by a tenant, as Bondre's tenancy had been terminated and the first respondent was a trespasser. Therefore, section 29(2) was not applicable. 5. Section 84 of the Act provides for summary eviction of persons unauthorizedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of land. The first respondent was a trespasser and was, therefore, liable to be summarily evicted under section 84.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and restored the order of summary eviction passed by the Assistant Collector.

JUDGMENT - MADAN, J.- This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by which the tribunal held that the application filed by the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under section 84 (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said Act”), was not maintainable

2. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are owners of half portion of a plot of land bearing Revision Survey Nos. 91 and 92 situate in Kagal Taluka in the District of Kolhapur. It will be convenient to refer here-in after to the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as “the landlords”. In 1953 the landlord leased the said plot of land to one Shankar Krishna Bondre whose heirs and legal representatives are respondents Nos. 5 (a), 5 (c), and 5 (d). It is not disputed that the said lease was for the purpose of cultivation of sugarcane. By a writing dated October 24, 1969, the said Bondre created a sub-lease in respect of the said plot of land in favour of the first respondents, Valubai for a period of ten years for a consideration of Rs. 4,000. It is the case of the landlords that on coming to learn about the sub-lease they gave a notice of three months terminating the said lease in favour of the said Bondre. In the said notice the ground for termination was mentioned as the creation of the said sub-lease in favour of the first respondent without the consent of the landlords. This notice was addressed both to the said Bondre as also to the first respondent. Thereafter the landlords filed an application under section 84 of the mid Act against the first respondent. The said application was numbered as Tenancy Case No.9 of 1971 and was head by the Assistant Collector, Karvir Division, Kolhapur. The said Assistant Collector sent the papers to the Tenancy Aval Karkun, Kagal, for. recording evidence, both oral and documentary, which the said Aval Karkun did and forwarded his report to the said Assistant Collector. Before the said Assistant Collector it was contended by the first respondent that-she was in possession~ of the plot of land on the basis of the said wonting dated October 24, 1969 and, therefore, it could not be said that her possession was illegal or invalid. It was further urged that the legality of the first respondent's tenancy was yet to be decided and, therefore, the landlords should seek redress under sections 14 and 29 of the said Act. The said Assistant Collector held that the said writing dated October 24, 1969 was executed without the consent of the landlord” and, there-fore, the possession of the first respondent was a wrongful possession and that of a trespasser, and he allowed the said applicatiun and passed an order. of summary eviction from the said land against the first respondent. The '“ first respondent thereupon approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tril:1unal in revision Before the Tribunal four contentions were taken on behalf of the first respondents, namely, (1) the application under section 84 was not maintainable and the only remedy available to the landlords was to proceed under sub-section (2) of section 29, (2) the said Bondre was a necessary 'party to the proceedings, (3) as the said plot of land was leased to the said Bondre for the perpose of cultivation of sugarcane, section 27 of the said Act was not attracted, and, therefore, the landlords could not file an application under section 84 on the ground that the said plot of land had been sub let by the said Bondre to the first respondent, (4) the said Bondre had become a deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957, and the question of unlawful subletting by the said Bondre, therefore, did not arise. The TribunaJ held that by reason of the provisions of section 43A of the said Act Section 21 did not apply to the plot of land in question inasmuch as the said plot was leased for the purpose of cultivation of sugar-cane and, therefore, the application filed by the land-lor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document