Kacharu B. Ambekar vs Suryabhan Bahiru Shelke

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1115

N.J.JAMADAR
Kacharu B. Ambekar – Appellant
Versus
Suryabhan Bahiru Shelke – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. R. M. Khairnar, I/b P. N. Joshi

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in providing a remedy for summary eviction when dispossession is by the landlord? What is the relationship between Section 29(1) and Section 84 of the Act, and can an erstwhile tenant proceed under Section 84 if a remedy under Section 29(1) is or would be available? What is the impact of the Vallabhbhai Nathabhai decision and subsequent case law on whether an application under Section 84 is maintainable when the tenant is deemed purchaser or when dispossession occurred by the landlord?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the scope of Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in providing a remedy for summary eviction when dispossession is by the landlord?

What is the relationship between Section 29(1) and Section 84 of the Act, and can an erstwhile tenant proceed under Section 84 if a remedy under Section 29(1) is or would be available?

What is the impact of the Vallabhbhai Nathabhai decision and subsequent case law on whether an application under Section 84 is maintainable when the tenant is deemed purchaser or when dispossession occurred by the landlord?

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, (“MRT”) in Revision Application No. Tenancy A.70/1994, dated 24th November, 1995, whereby the revision came to be allowed and the order dated 30th November, 1993, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Niphad Division, (“SDO”), in an application under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Act, 1948”, for short), rejecting the prayer of the respondents for restoration of possession of agricultural lands, came to be set aside.

2. The controversy giving rise to the instant petition lies in a narrow compass and arises in the backdrop of following facts:

(a) The agricultural lands bearing Gat No.333 admeasuring 47 Ares and Gat No. 323 admeasuring 70 Ares (“the suit lands”, for short) situated at village Vinchur Dalvi, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik, were owned by the predecessor in title of the petitioners, (hereinafter referred to as the landlord, which term denotes the original landlord as well as the successors in interest). Late Bhairu Tukaram Shelke, the predecessor in title of the resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1115

N.J.JAMADARKacharu B. Ambekar – AppellantVersusSuryabhan Bahiru Shelke – Respondent

What is the scope of Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in providing a remedy for summary eviction when dispossession is by the landlord?

What is the relationship between Section 29(1) and Section 84 of the Act, and can an erstwhile tenant proceed under Section 84 if a remedy under Section 29(1) is or would be available?

What is the impact of the Vallabhbhai Nathabhai decision and subsequent case law on whether an application under Section 84 is maintainable when the tenant is deemed purchaser or when dispossession occurred by the landlord?

Cases Referred (4)

N.J.JAMADAR
Kacharu B. Ambekar – Appellant
Versus
Suryabhan Bahiru Shelke – Respondent