1970 Supreme(Bom) 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(M. N. Chanaurkar J.)
KAMLESH and another - Petitioner.
Vs.
SUKUDEO - Respondent.
Advocates Appeared
For petitioner- K. H. Deshpande.
For Respondent- G. P. Kalele.

The power under section 30 of the Tenancy Act to direct the tenant to pay arrears of rent includes arrears prior to the coming into force of the Act, and the definition of "rent" in section 2(26) of the Act includes lease money payable by a protected lessee.

Headnote:

TENANCY ACT - SECTION 30 - ARREARS OF RENT - JURISDICTION OF TAHSILDAR TO DIRECT PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF RENT DUE PRIOR TO THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, landlords, filed a proceeding for ejectment against the respondent-tenant for non-payment of lease money for the years 1958-59, 1959-60, and 1960-61. The Tenancy Tahsildar directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rent for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, and 1959-60, but held that the petitioners were not entitled to recover lease money for the years 1954-55 to 1956-57, as it was barred by limitation. The petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed. They then filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which held that the petitioners were entitled to recover the amount of lease money for the years 1954-55 to 1956-57 and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 216 for the arrears of rent for the three years within three months from the date of the order. The respondent failed to pay the amount within the prescribed period, and the Additional Tahsildar held that there was no proper tender of the amount of rent on or before the due date and ordered the respondent's eviction. The respondent filed a petition in the High Court, which remanded the revision application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The Tribunal held that the order passed on 2nd September 1963 was without jurisdiction and that the respondent could not be evicted for non-compliance with that order. The petitioners challenged this order in the present petition.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 2nd September 1963 was not without jurisdiction and that the Tribunal had the power to direct the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period prior to the coming into force of the Tenancy Act. The Court held that the words "rent in arrears" in section 30(1) of the Tenancy Act include arrears prior to the coming into force of the Act and that the definition of "rent" in section 2(26) of the Act includes lease money payable by a protected lessee. The Court also held that the tenant's failure to pay the amount of rent within the prescribed period deprived him of the relief which he was entitled to under section 30 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the Tahsildar had the jurisdiction to direct the tenant to pay arrears of rent due prior to the coming into force of the Tenancy Act? 2. Whether the definition of "rent" in section 2(26) of the Tenancy Act includes lease money payable by a protected lessee?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power under section 30 of the Tenancy Act to direct the tenant to pay arrears of rent includes arrears prior to the coming into force of the Act. The words "rent in arrears" in section 30(1) of the Act are not qualified and, given their natural meaning, include rent which has not been paid by the tenant to the landlord. The object of section 30(1) is to give relief against termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent, and this object would be defeated if arrears prior to the coming into force of the Act were excluded from the sweep of the phrase "rent in arrears". 2. The definition of "rent" in section 2(26) of the Tenancy Act includes lease money payable by a protected lessee. The definition states that "rent" means "any consideration, in money or kind or both, paid or payable by a tenant on account of the use or occupation of the land held by him". This definition is broad enough to cover lease money, which is a consideration paid by a tenant for the right to use land.

Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 4th March 1968 is quashed and the orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector and the Additional Tahsildar of are restored.