SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1218

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J
Shankar Shripad Latkar and Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Dattatraya Haribhau Borawake and Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction | Writ Petition No. 4492 of 1988 | Writ Petition No. 2523 of 1991 | Writ Petition No. 2520 of 1991



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Vrishali L. Maindad
For the Respondents: Mr. Dilip Bodake

Court confirmed landlord's right to possession based on tenant's failure to pay rent for three consecutive years per statutory provisions, affirming the validity of the eviction notice.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 25 - Failure to pay rent for three consecutive years - The court held that statutory notice requirements were not met and concurrent findings of fact favoring landlord on defaults were not overturned by MRT - Landlord's prayer to restore possession was upheld, tenant's petitions dismissed. (Paras 19-23)

(B) Petitioners in WP No.4492, landlords, sought quash of MRT order allowing tenant to deposit arrears post non-compliance - Identification of default period critical - Reiterated that the MRT's findings must prove untenable to overturn.

(C) Tenant’s arrears prior to notice were not substantiated. Arguments regarding receipt of rent payments were dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence.

Facts of the case:
The landlord contested the MRT's finding maintaining tenant defaulted on rent for over three years, showing inadequate evidence for counterclaims of rent payment by tenant.

Findings of Court:
Orders were quashed that previously favored tenant, restoring landlord’s rights to possession based on statutory grounds effective under Section 25(2) of the Act.

Issues: The core issues involved validity of landlord’s notice, evidential basis for tenant's claims of payment, and the default duration for evictions under statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established the lack of evidence to support continuous payment of rent by tenant and underscored mandatory compliance with statutory notice and rent obligations per Sections 14, 25 and 27.

Result: Writ Petition No.4492 allowed; Writ Petition No.2523 dismissed; Writ Petition No.2520 disposed of.

Table of Content
1. multiple writs filed concerning landlord-tenant disputes. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. agreed upon rental payment and obligations initiated a series of legal proceedings. (Para 6 , 8 , 13)
3. legal arguments focused on compliance with statutory notice provisions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 18)
4. court upheld landlord’s claim for possession due to tenant defaults. (Para 19 , 20 , 22)
JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.4492 of 1988 and Respondents in WP No.2523 of 1991 and WP No.2520 of 1991 and Mr. Dilip Bodake, leanred Advocate for Petitioner in WP No.2523 of 1991 and WP No.2520 of 1991 and Respondent in WP No.4492 of 1988.

2. Writ Petition No.4492 of 1988 has been filed by Shankar Shripad Latkar and others (for short “landlord”) against the judgment and order dated 21.01.1988 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (for short “MRT”) in MRT Revision Case No.328 of 1985.

3. Writ Petition No.2523 of 1991 has been filed by Dattatraya Haribhau Borawake Ors. (for short “tenant”) against the same judgment.

4. Writ Petition No.2520 of 1991 has been filed by the tenant against the judgment and order dated 14.04.1991 passed by the MRT, Pune in MRT Case No.64 of 1990.

5. The description of the suit lands is under:-

6. Parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant for convenience. Needless to state that the parties to the present Petitioners are all successors-in-title of the landlord and tenant and shall be bound by the outcome of the present Writ Petitions. Such of the relevant facts which are necessary for determination of the present dispute are stated herein under:-

(i) On 05.05.1943, the suit land was leased to the tenant for harvesting sugarcane by a registered lease deed.

(ii) On 20.05.1964, rent of the suit lands was fixed at Rs.950/- per year in Case No.74 of 1964 filed by the landlord.

(iii) On 19.03.1973, landlord filed Tenancy Case No.08 of 1973 in the Court of the Tahsildar, Phaltan seeking possession of the suit land on the ground of the tenant being in arrears of rent for three years prior thereto for the years 1969 -1970, 1970 -1971 and 1971 – 1972 and also in view of sub-division of the suit land.

(iv) On 05.03.1975, Tahsildar, Phaltan dismissed the said case.

(v) On 31.01.1976, landlord’s Appeal No.18 of 1975 against the aforesaid judgment and order of Tahsildar was dismissed by the Sub-Division Officer (for short “SDO”), Phaltan.

(vi) On 31.12.1976, MRT allowed the landlord’s Revision Application and set aside both the aforesaid judgments passed by the Tahsildar and SDO and remanded the case to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration and disposal.

(vii) On 03.06.1984, landlord filed an Application before the Tahsildar, Phaltan seeking possession of the suit land from the tenant on the following grounds:-

(a) that the tenant committed defaults in payment of rent for more than three years;

(b) that the tenant sublet and sub-divided the suit lands without landlord's permission; and (c) that the landlord required the suit lands for his bonafide personal cultivation.

(viii)On 04.03.1985, the Tenancy Court allowed the landlord’s Application by returning a finding that the tenant committed default for more than three years beginning from 1967 - 1968 onwards up to 1982 – 1983 that is for 15 years and the landlord required the suit lands for his bonafinde cultivation. In so far as the ground of subleting and sub-division was concerned, landlord’s Application on that ground was dismissed.

(ix) On 30.09.1985, the SDO confirmed the aforementioned findings and dismissed the tenant’s Appeal No.17 of 1985.

(x) On 27.01.1988, the tenant’s Revision Application No.328 of 1985 was allowed by the MRT by re- appreciating and reassessing the entire evidence and resultantly concurrent findings given by the Tahsildar and the SDO were set aside. MRT held that landlord had failed to prove his case under Section 25 (2) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for shor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top