Holding

A widow’s cultivation of land through a tenant is deemed personal cultivation under Section 2(6) Explanation I, so the twelve‑year limitation in Section 37 does not apply.

Summary

The appellant, a tenant, sought restoration of possession of agricultural land after the landlord's widow took possession following a termination under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The widow leased the land to another tenant within eleven years and eleven months of taking possession, and claimed that, as a widow, her cultivation through a tenant fell within the definition of "to cultivate personally" under Section 2(6) Explanation I, thereby exempting her from the twelve‑year embargo in Section 37. The appellant argued that the lease before the expiry of twelve years triggered Section 37, entitling him to possession. The Supreme Court held that a widow’s cultivation through a tenant is deemed personal cultivation, and since the widow had used the land for less than twelve years, Section 37 was not attracted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a widow’s cultivation of land through a tenant is deemed "personal cultivation" under Section 2(6) Explanation I of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Whether Section 37(1) obliges the landlord (widow) to restore possession to the tenant when the land was leased out before the expiry of the twelve‑year period.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 15, s. 2(6), s. 31, s. 33B, s. 34, s. 37(1), s. 4

Subjects

tenancyagricultural landrestoration of possessionpersonal cultivationwidowSection 37Bombay Tenancy Actleasestatutory period

Judgment

KlSAN YASHWANT DHIRADE A
v.
SONABAI BAPPU LOHAR AND ORS.

APRIL 10, 2001

[SYED SHAH _M:OHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.J B

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:

Ss.2(6) and 37(1)-Tenants claim/or restoration ofpossession of land-
Tenant handing over possession of land to landlord u/s 31-Widow of landlord C
giving land on leasr after 11 years and about 11 months-Original tenant
claiming restoration of possession 011 the ground that the land was leased
out before expiry of statutory period of 12 years-Widow defending the
restoration on the ground that being a widow she was entitled to cultivate
the land peruonally, which includes through a tenant as provided in s.2(6)- D
Held, as the widow remained and utilised the land for eleven years and about
eleven months, there is justification in treating that she has committed no
violation of twelve years embargo. contained in s.37.

S.2(6)__:_Explanation1-Expression ~'to cultivate personally"-Held, in
case of a widow or a minor, or a pers(>1iwh~ is subject to physical o; mental. E
disability or a serving member of the armed forces. Cultivation of land on
ones own account includes through servants o/1 labourer or through tenants-
The respondent is a widow and had lost her son also-Even though she gave
the land on lease, she will be deemed to be cultivating the land personally
within the meaning of the said phrase.
F
S.2(6)-Explanation II-Tenant referred to if! Explanation II is not the
tenant who had surrendered the possession ·of land under s. 31.

Words and Phrases:

"To cultivate personally"-lijeaning of G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3024 of
1997. .

From the Judgment and Order dated i3.6.94 of the Bombay High Court
in WP. No. 3099 ofl989. H
95
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A .
Ms. Promila, Ms. Anuradha Rustogi and T. Raja for the Appellant.
'

i.
. '

Manoj Swamp for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court wad delivered :

B The appellant is the dissatisfied tenant who parted with the possession
of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 250, measuring_ acres 13 guntas 5
situated at Belpimpaltaon Taluq, Newasa, Distt. Ahmednagar. He is in appeal
before us, by special leave, against the judgment and order dated June 23,
1994 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3099 of
y
1989 which was initially filed before the Bombay Bench as Writ Petition No.
c 3742 of 1981 but was later transferred to the Aurangabad Bench and
renumbered.

The facts ielevant for disposal of this appeal may be noted in brief. The
respondent is the widow of late Bapu Lobar who was the landlord of the said
land. The case of the appellant before the Tenancy Awal Karkun was that the
D possession of the said land was handed over to the husband of the respondent
by him in proceediJ!.gs initiated under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy & ·
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that ,..
before the expiry of the statutory period of twelve years she had leased it out
to one Damu Kalu.Suryavanshi on March 21, 1969, therefore, he was entitled
E to restoratiort of possession. The respondent defended the application on
two grounds; first, that she, being a widow, is entitled to cultivate the land
personally which includes through a tenantas provided in Section 2(6) of the
Act and there is no scope to invoke Section 37 so as to give the appellant
right to claim restoration of possession; secondly, it was pleaded that he had
surrendered the land under Section 15 of the Act in which case the provisions
F of Section 37 of the Act would not be attracted and the question of restoration
of possession did not arise.

The Tenancy Awal Karkun found that the possession of the land was
handed over to the husband of the respondent in proceedings initiated by
him under Section 31 of the Act as per the order of the Mamlatdar dated May
G 6, 1957. He also found that in view of subsequent leasing out of the land by >=
the respondent before twelve years from the date of taking possession of the
land, the appeilant became entitled to resume the land. Appeal against the
said order of the Tenancy Awai Karkun before the Sub-Divisional Officer
having been u~succ~ssful, the respondept ·filed a ~evision before the
H Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was held by the Tribunal; (i) the surrender
. K. Y. DHIRADE v. SONABAI BAPPU LO HAR 97
pleaded u~der Section· is ~as niaiid surr"~m;ler, therefore, the appeliant was A
not entitled to get back the possession; ·(ii) as the respondent was a widow
she was entitled ·to the benefit of cultivating the land through a tenant as
provided in Section 2(6) of the Act and her right to be in possession of the
land· was not lost. The Tribunal thus allowed .the appeal of the respondent
· ·on January 31, 19 81. ·That order of the Tribunal was assailed by the appellant B
in .the w~t proceedings, referred to above, in the High Court. By the order,
impugned in this appeal, the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the
appellant which led to filing o.f this appeal.

Ms. Promila, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in view of ·
the finding of the Tribunals below that there was termination. of tenancy C
under Section 31 and recovery of possession of the land in question by the
. respondent for personal cultivation whith is supported by the order of the
Mamlatdar passed on May 6, 1957 and leasing out the land by her to another
tenant within twelve years, Section 37 is attracted and the appellant cannot
be denied restoration of possession, therefore, the orders of the Tribunal and
the High Court are liable to be set aside. D
It will be helpful to read Section 37(1) of the Act which is relevant for
~ our purpose:

'.'37. Landlord to restore possession if he fails to cultivate within one
year-(l) If after the landlord takes possession of the land after the E
.. terminatiOn of the tenancy [under Section 31 ], [33B or Section 34 of
this Act as it stood immediately before the commencement of the
Amending Act, 1956] he fails to use it for any of the purposes
specified in the notice given under [Section .31 ], [33B or Section 34 of
this Act as it stood immediately before the commencement of the
Amending Act, 19~6] within one year from the date on which he took F
possession or ceases to use it at any tinie for any of the aforesaid
purposes within twelve years from the date on which he took such
possession, the landlord shall forthwith restore possession of the
land to the tenant whose tenancy was tem1inated by him, unless he ·
has obtained from the tenant his refusal in writing to accept the G
tenancy on the same terms and conditions or has offered in writing
to give possession of the land to the tenant ·on the same terms and
conditions and the tenant has failed to accept the offer within three
months· of the receipt thereof."
. . ~

A plain reading of the provision above-quoted, shows that when a I.Jc .. .·.
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 3 S.C.R.

A landlord takes possession of land after termination of tenancy under Section .,_~
31, 33B or 34 of the Act and fails to make use of it for the purpose specified
in the aforesaid sections within one year of taking possession of the land or \
eases·ta41se for the aforesaid purpose within twelve years from the date on
which he took such possession, he is under an obligation to restore possession
of the lznd to the tenant whose tenancy was terminated by him. There are,
B however, two exceptions to this mandate : (i) refusal of the tenant in writing
to accept the tenancy on the same terms and conditions and (ii) failure of the
tenant to accept the offer within three months of the receipt of a written offer
of the landlord to give possession of the land to the tenant on the same terms
and conditions. Here section 37(1) is invoked on the allegation of ceasing to
C use the land for personal cultivation for twelve years from the date on which
the landlord took possession of the land. The phrase "to cultivate personally"
is defined·in Section 2(6) of the•Act as follows :

"2(6). "to cultivate personally" means to cultivate land on one's own
account_;_
D
(i) by one's own labour, or
(ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or
(iii) under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of
one's family, by hired labourer by servants on wages payable in
E cash or kind but not in crop share.
being land, the entire area of which-
'
(a) is situate within the limits of a single village,· or
(b) is so ~ituated that no· piece of land is separated from another by
F a distance of more than five miles, or
(c) forms one q>mpact block:
Pr<>vided that the restrictions contained in clauses (a), (b) and
(c) shall not apply to any land,
. ..
G .(i) which poes not exceed twice th,e ceiling area,
(n) upto twice the ceiling area,· if such land exceeds twice the ceiling
area.
Explanation !.-A widow or a minor, or a person who is subject
to physical or mental disability, or a serving member of the armed
H forces shall be deemed to cultivate the land personally if such
t

K.Y. DHIRADE v. SONABAI BAPPU LOHAR 99

land is cultivated by servants, or by hired labour, or through A
tenants.
Explanation II-In the case of a joint family, the land shall be
deemed to have been cultivated personally if it is cultivated by
any member of such family."

A perusal of the definition as elcucidated in Explanation I, extracted
B
above, makes it clear that in case of a widow or a minor, or a person who is
subject to physical or mental disability, or a serving member of the armed
forces, cultivation of land on one's own account includes through servan~s
or labourer or through tenants. The respondent is a widow and had lost her
son also. Even though she gave the land on lease to Damu Kalu Suryavansh~, C
she will be deemed to be cultivating the land personally within the meaning
of the said phrase.

However, Ms. Promila contends that in view of Explanation II to Section
4 the appellant will have to be treated as a tenant entitled to restoration of
possession of the land in question. The said Explanation is in the following D
terms:

Explanation II-Where any land is cultivated by a widow or a
minor or a person who is subject to physical or mental disability
or a serving member of the armed forces through a tenant then
notwithstanding anything contained in Explanation I to clause E
(6) of Section 2, such tenant shall be deemed to be tenant within
the meaning of this Section."

From the Explanation it is evident that when any land is cultivated by
a widow or a minor or a person who is subject to physic~ or mental disability~
or a serving member of the armed forces through a tenant then notwithstanding F
anything contained in Explanation I to Section 2(6) such tenant shall be.
deemed to be a tenant within the meaning of Section 4 which particularises
'deemed tenants'. Obviously, the tenant referred to therein is not the tenant
who had surrendered the possession of the land under Section 31 of the Act.
Therefore, this Explanation will be of no help to the appellant. G
In any event as the respondent remained and utilised the land for
eleven years and about months, in our view, there is justification in treating
that she has committed no violation of twelve years embargo contained in
Section 37 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it
necessary to go into the question of the truth or validity of surrender of the H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R..
' . ' .
A said lan:d by the appellant in favour of the ·husband of the rnspondent.
'
•
... , ...
In the result, we find no illegality in the order of the High. Court to :..
warrant our interference therewith. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but
in the circumstarices of the case, without costs.

B R.P. Appeal dismissed.