The deletion of section 43-D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, by section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act (X of 1977) is a valid exercise of legislative power and does not violate Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) or Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
TENANCY - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 43-D - DELETION - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 19(1)(F) AND (G) AND ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - REASONABLENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST - DISCRIMINATION - SECTION 6 OF THE MAHARASHTRA AMENDMENT ACT (X OF 1977) - INTERPRETATION - EFFECT ON PENDING PROCEEDINGS - ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:

In these two petitions which arise out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, questions about the validity of section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act (X of 1977) which deleted section 43-D of the Act as also the interpretation of section 6 of the said amending Act arise for consideration.
Finding of the Court:

1. The deletion of section 43-D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, by section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act (X of 1977) is a valid exercise of legislative power and does not violate Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) or Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The provisions of section 6 of the Amending Act are clear and unambiguous and do not suffer from any infirmity. 3. The proceedings for possession of land under section 43-D of the Act, which were pending at the time of the deletion of the section, abated if the landlord had not taken possession of the land before the date of introduction of the Amending Bill in the legislature.
Issues: 1. Whether the deletion of section 43-D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, by section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act (X of 1977) is violative of Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) and Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the provisions of section 6 of the Amending Act are clear and unambiguous? 3. Whether the proceedings for possession of land under section 43-D of the Act, which were pending at the time of the deletion of the section, abated if the landlord had not taken possession of the land before the date of introduction of the Amending Bill in the legislature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The deletion of section 43-D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, by section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act (X of 1977) is a valid exercise of legislative power and does not violate Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) or Article 14 of the Constitution because: a) The deletion of section 43-D is a reasonable restriction on the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy under section 43-D, as it is in the public interest to protect the rights of tenants in municipal areas. b) The deletion of section 43-D does not create any arbitrary discrimination between landlords in municipal areas and landlords in non-municipal areas, as both groups of landlords are subject to the same restrictions on their right to terminate tenancies. 2. The provisions of section 6 of the Amending Act are clear and unambiguous and do not suffer from any infirmity. 3. The proceedings for possession of land under section 43-D of the Act, which were pending at the time of the deletion of the section, abated if the landlord had not taken possession of the land before the date of introduction of the Amending Bill in the legislature, as this is the plain meaning of the language of section 6.
Final Decision: 1. The petitions are allowed. 2. The deletion of section 43-D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, by section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act (X of 1977) is upheld. 3. The provisions of section 6 of the Amending Act are declared to be clear and unambiguous. 4. The proceedings for possession of land under section 43-D of the Act, which were pending at the time of the deletion of the section, abated if the landlord had not taken possession of the land before the date of introduction of the Amending Bill in the legislature.

JUDGMENT - SHAH P.S., J.: - In these two petitions which arise out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', questions about the validity of section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act (X of 1977) which deleted section 43-D of the Act as also the interpretation of section 6 of the said amending Act arise for consideration. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions it is necessary to mention the relevant facts in both the petitions which are not in dispute.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3126 OF 1975:

2. In this case the predecessor in title of respondents Nos. 1 to 12 was the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant of two Inam lands bearing Revision Survey Nos. 387/1 admeasuring 19 gunthas and Revision Survey No. 387/2 admeasuring 39 gunthas situate within the Municipal limits of Miraj, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli. On the death of the original landlord, respondent Nos. 1 to 12 have become the owners-landlords of the said lands, respondents Nos. 1 to 6 served on the petitioner a notice dated February 19, 1959, under section 43-D of the Act terminating his tenancy on the ground that they required the lands bona fide for a non-agricultural purpose. After thus terminating the tenancy on November 28, 1959, respondents Nos. 1 to 6 filed Tenancy Application No. 321 of 1960 in the Court of the Tahsildar for possession of the said lands. The tenant inter alia contended that the notice of termination of the tenancy was not legal and also that the landlords did not bona fide require the lands for a non-agricultural purpose as alleged by them. By his order dated September 30, 1971, the Tahsildar allowed the application and directed delivery of possession of the land to the respondents Nos. 1 to 6. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 81 of 1972 before the Spl. Deputy Collector who by his order dated October 9, 1973, partly allowed the appeal, holding that the notice of termination of tenancy was not signed by the respondent No. 6 and he was not entitled to possession of his 1/6th share in the lands. The petitioner's appeal regarding the remaining 5/6th share in the said lands, however, was dismissed. The order in appeal was challenged by the petitioners in Revision Application bearing Revision Application No. 299 of 1973 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. By its order dated June 29, 1974, the Tribunal rejected the Revision Application. Thus according to the orders passed in these proceedings the landlords are entitled to get possession of 5/6th share in the said lands. Aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Tribunal, the petitioner-tenant has filed this writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution. It is common ground that the landlords in whose favour the Revenue authorities have passed an order for delivery of possession have not yet executed the order and the tenant continues to remain in possession.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2967 OF 1978:

3. In this case the petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant of Survey No. 33-A-1/5 A-1, admeasuring 24½ gunthas situate within the Municipal Limits of Vengurla in Ratnagiri District (now Srivardhan District). The petitioners served upon the respondent a notice dated September 26, 1976, under section 43-D of the Act terminating his tenancy by the end of May 1976 on the ground that they bona fide required the land for a non-agricultural purpose viz. the construction of a theatre. After thus terminating the tenancy, on June 21, 1976, the petitioner filed Tenancy Case No. 21 of 1976 before the Tahsildar for possession on the aforesaid ground. The respondent's defence inter alia was that he was not a protected tenant, but was a permanent tenant and not liable to be evicted. He also denied that the petitioners bona fide required the land for the non-agricultural purpose set up by them. By Order dated October 30, 1976, the Tahsildar g

Click Here to Read the rest of this document