G.B. KASHIRASAGARversusL.A. NARODE

i
I




                                        G.B. KASHIRASAGAR                                      A
                                                    v.
    -;}'>                                    L.A. NARODE
~


                                         SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

                         . (M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)                             B

                      Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy:

                      Bombay Tenancy and Agiicultural Lands Act, 1948:

                     Ss.31, 31 C-Eviction of tenant of sugarcane land-Bar to end ten an-       c
              CyApplication by landlord for eviction of tenant-Order passed in tenns of
              compromise - Te11ant sun·e11dering 3 acres and retaining I acre and 38 guntas
              of land-Landlord again seeking to tem1i11ate the tenancy 011 the ground of
              bona fide perso11al cultivation alleging that earlier order was merely a co11sent
              order and strictly was not a11 order u/s 31-Held, provision u/s 31 read with D
        .\    s. 31C for evic1io11 of te11a11t is one time measure-Proceedings u/s 31 had
              been once resorled. to by landlord and a decisio11 was made thereon with
              consent of pa1ties to which the authority hea1i11g the matter put his seal of
              approval-Sectio11 31C is a11 obvious bar to a second attempt to end the
              te11ancy.
                                                                                               E
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2554 of
              1982.
        :4.
                   From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.80 of the Bombay High
              Court in S.C.A. No. 2847 of 1975.
                                                                                               F
                      V.N. Ganpule and V.B. Joshi for the Appellant.

                      Ms. J.S. Wad for the Respondent.

                      The followi!1g Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                               G
                     The view of the High Court in rendering the appellant helpless in
              retaining his tenancy over a small piece of land admeasuring 1 acre and
       .~
              38 guntas is put to challenge in this appeal.

                   It transpires that the appellant was in cultivating possession of 4 acres
              and 38 guntas of land under the respondent-landlord. On an application           H
                                                    l

~
                          SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A nioved by the landlord under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and
  Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [the Act), the Tenancy Awai Karkun, Kopar-
  gaon passed an order on 3.5.1954 on the basis of a compromise effected
  between the parties whereunder 3 acres of land was surrendered to the
                                                                                   ~     ..
  landlord and the balance land was left to be retained by the tenant. It is
  beyond dispute that had the application been decided on merit, the worst
B that could have happened to the tenant W9-S that he would have been made
  to vacate half the tenanted land . As is obvious, the tenant was worse off by
  the compromise and was left to retain less than half of the land to the
  extent of 1 acre. 38 guntas only. Be that as it may, the situation continued
  as such, when a second attempt was made by the landlord to evict the
c tenant under the same provision of Section 31 of the Act. This time, there
  again was a compromise. The land was conceded to be sugarcane land.
  Undeniably, different provisions of the Act apply to sugarcane lands,
  details of which we are not presently concerned with; except to say that
  the tenants of the sugarcane lands were then not evictable. Later came a

D notification  which permitted eviction of tenants of sugarcane lands as well,
  provided such an endeavour did not come to clash with the provisions of
                                                                                   ~


  Section 31C and 31D of the Act. Section 31C provides that the tenancy of
   any land left with the tenant after the termination of the tenancy under
  Section 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to termination again
   on the ground that the landlord bona fide required that land for personal
E cultivation. Section 31D provides that if, in consequence of the termination
   of the tenancy under section 31 any part of the land leased is left with the
   tenant, the rent shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in propor-
   tion to the area of the. land left with the tenant. The notification prompted
   the landlord to move again, seeking the land left with the tenant for bona
   fide personal cultivation. He naturally was confronted by the tenant with
F
   the bar under Section 31C of the Act. Two courts in the revenue hierarchy
   employed the bar and decided in favour of the tenant-appellant but the
   Land Tribunal in revision at the instance of the landlord, upset those
                                                                                          ;-
   orders and the High Court in a writ petition, has come to confirm the
   same.
G
        The ground on which the Land Tribunal and the High Court have              ),.
  demolished the defence available in Section 31C is that the earlier order
  under Section 31, dated 3.5.1954 was, strictly speaking, not an order under
  Section 31 but merely a consent order or a compromise order; not an order
H of the kind envisaged under Section 31C so as to erect a bar. It is to
                  G.B. KASHIRASAGAR v. L.A NARODE                         3

examine that view that the parties' counsel have been heard and the            A
relevant provisions gone into.

       It is noticeable that Section 31 provides for the procedure for ter-
mination of tenancy for personal cultivation and for non- agricultural use,
for which the landlord has been vested with a right. If his claim is bona
fide and is based on the rights conferred in the provision then read with      B
Section 31C, the said provision patently appears to be a one-time measure.
The matter in hand can be viewed in this manner that proceedings under
Section 31 were resorted to by the landlord and a decision was made
thereon, if not on contest with consent of the parties, to which the
Authority hearing the matter put its seal of approval. No one can say that     C
the said order was not an order in purported exercise of the powers and
functions of the Authority under Section 31. Having had a larger share of
the cake, it did not lie in the mouth of the landlord to be complaining that
those proceedings were no proceedings at all, in terms of Section 31.
Merely because the Authority did not record an order after contest, can
be no ground to denude the power exercised by the Authority in that            D
behalf. If this is so then Section 31C is an obvious bar to a second attempt
to end the tenancy. Merely because the landlord bona fide requires that
land for personal cultivation on the suggested premise that his family
members have increased is of no consequence. Thus, in our view, the High
Court, with due respect, was in error in rendering the appellant defence-      E
less, denying him the benefit of Section 31C of the Act. We hold accord-
ingly.

      For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and
order of the High Court is set aside as also that of the Land tribunal;
restoring the orders of the Authorities under the Act passed at the two        F
stages; initial as well as secondary. No costs.

R.P.                                                       Appeal allowed.