Holding

A certificate under Section 88C(4) can be revoked under Section 880(1) if, at the date of the revocation application, the certificate holder’s income exceeds Rs 1500, and the relevant date is the filing of the landlord’s possession application under Section 338/29, not the Mamlatdar’s final order.

Summary

The predecessor of the appellants, a landlord, obtained an exemption certificate under Section 88C(4) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 because his annual income as of 1 April 1957 was below Rs 1500. The High Court upheld the certificate. After the certificate was granted, the appellants gave notice and applied under Section 338/29 for possession of the land for personal cultivation. While this application was pending, the respondents (tenants) filed an application under Section 880(1)(iv) seeking revocation of the exemption certificate on the ground that the appellants' income now exceeded Rs 1500. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the revocation application; the High Court set aside that order and allowed the respondents. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a certificate under Section 88C(4) may be revoked under Section 880(1) if, at the date of the revocation application, the certificate holder’s income exceeds Rs 1500, and that the relevant date is the filing of the landlord’s application for possession under Section 338/29, not the final order of the Mamlatdar. Once the landlord complies with the statutory requirements of Section 338 within the prescribed period, the exemption certificate is exhausted and the tenant cannot seek its revocation thereafter. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Additional Commissioner’s decision.

Issues considered

The revocation of an exemption certificate under Section 880(1)(iv) is maintainable after the landlord has terminated tenancy and applied for possession under Section 338/29.
The appropriate date for assessing the landlord’s income for revocation – whether the date of filing the revocation application or the date of the final Mamlatdar order.
Whether a certificate granted under Section 88C(4) becomes final and irrevocable after the High Court’s confirmation.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 29, s. 31, s. 31A, s. 31B, s. 32, s. 32A-32R, s. 338, s. 33A, s. 33B, s. 33C, s. 88, s. 880, s. 88A, s. 88C, s. 88D

Subjects

exemption certificateSection 88CSection 880revocationlandlord incometenancy terminationSection 338agricultural landcertificated landlordexcluded tenantfinality

Judgment

A MORESHWAR BALKRISHNA PANDARE AND ORS.
\(

VITHAL VYANKU CHA YAN AND ORS.

MAYll,2001

B [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948-Section 33B read
with Section 29. Section 88C(1) and 88(d){i)(iv)-Exemption Certificate- .;..... .
C Grant of, since annual income of landlord less than Rs. 1500 as on April, I,
1957-Revocation thereof-Plea that subsequent income cannot be taken
into account-Held, exemption certificate could be revoked, if the annual
income of certificate holder subsequently exceeds Rs. 1500, even if the annual
income was lesser as on April, 1957.

D Revocation of Exemption Certificate-limitation-Relevant date~Held,
the date of filing of application under Section 338 read with Section 29
would be the relevant date and not. .
the date of final order passed therein.

Exemption Certificate under Section 88C(4) of Bombay Tenancy and.
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was granted by Mamlatdar in favour of
E predecessor of appellant-landlord against predecessor of respondents-tenant
after their death.

Respondents' appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar before Sub-
Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) was allowed. High Court allowed the appeal of the
F appellants, confirming the order of the Mamlatdar, holding that for the purpose
of Section 88C, the total income of the deceased landlord as on 1st April, .,.... -
1957 should be the criteria and since the annual income of the landlord was
less than Rs. 1500, the exemption certificate was rightly granted.

Appellants, after due notice to the respondents, terminated the tenancy
G of the respondents and inade application under Section 338 read with Section
29 of the Act, before Mamlatdar, for possession of the land for personal
cultivation. During pendency of the application, respondents applied under
Section 88D(i)(iv) of the Act, for revocation of exemption certificate before
Additional Commissioner, on the ground that annual income of the appellants
had exceeded Rs. 1500 which was rejected as not maintainable in view of the
H 712
M.13. PAND/\RE v. V.V. CHA VAN 713

previous order of the High Court. Respondents' writ petition against the order A
of Additional Commissioner was allowed by the High Court and it held that
the application was maintainable and the case was remanded back to
- ""'- Additional Commissioner.

In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that subsequent increase
in the income of the appellant could not be taken into account, since the order B
of High Court, confirming the order of Mamlatdar had become final, and that
the respondents could not seek revocation of the certificate under Section
880, after the appellants had terminated the tenancy of the respondents and
had applied for possession of the land under Section 338.

The respondents contended that the exemption certificate had not C
attained finality as Section 880 gives independent right to the tenant to have
the exemption certificate revoked on establishing that annual income of the
landlord had exceeded Rs. 1500; and that since there is no restraint provided
in· Section 880 with regard to limitation or the stage of any proceedings, it
was permissible for the respondents to seek revocation of the certificate and D
that the application under Section 880 is maintainable till the order in
application under Section 338 read with Section 29 of the Act is finally passed
by Mamlatdar.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I.I. A certificate granted under sub-section (4) of Section 88C E
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act which is final in view of
sub-section (5), can be revoked under Section 880(1) ifthe State Government
is satisfied that in the case of the land referred to in Section 88C, the total
annual income of the person holding the certificate has exceeded Rs. 1500 or
that the total holding of such person exceeds the economic holding, as the
case may be. For grant Of certificate under Section 88C ( 4) income of the F
applicant-landlord as on April I, 1957 is the criteria but for the purpose of
revocation of the certificate what is relevant is the income of the person
holding the certificate as on the date of the application for revocation of the
certificate. The words employed in clause (iv), "the annual income of the
person has exceeded Rs. 1500" imply that even if on April I, 1957 the total G
income was not exceeding Rs. 1500 but subsequently it has exceeded that
amount as on the date of the revocation application, clause (iv) will be attracted.
1716-H; 717-A-BI

, -o( 1.2. In view of the opening words - non-obstante clause - Section 88D(I)
overrides Sections 88, 88A and 88C provided the requirements thereof are H
~,
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] 3 S,C,R,

A satisfied. f716-GI

2.1. Where the landlord has complied with the requirements of Section
338, by giving notice and applying for
possession within the statutory period
of th~ee months after receipt of certificate under Section 88C, the right of
the landlord crystallises apd the exemption certificate gets exhausted.
B Thereafter the excluded tenant cannot seek revocation
(
of exemption certificate.
.
• ' 1725-CJ
Parvatibai Ramchandra Rokade v. Mahadu Tukaram Varkhede, ·(1967)
69 Bombay law Reporter 383. and Bandu Kesu Jagada/e and Ors. v. Gopinath
Ramchandra lnamdar and Anr., AIR (1976) 63 Bombay 216, referred to.
c 2.2 It cannot be held that the date of final order of the Mamlatdar on the
~- ~

application of the certificated landlord should be treated as limitation after
which no application under Section 88D(i)(iv)could be entertained. The proper
date should be the date on which the certificated landlord makes the application
in terms of Section 338 read with Section 29 for possession of the land after
D giving notice to the excluded tenant which would meet the ends of justice.
1727*'1
I
Atmaram Onkar Tale/e v. Ananda Shrawan Kolambe, (1970) 72 Born.
L.R. 287, approved.

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3872 of 1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.91 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 1560of1981.

A.S. Bhasme and Manoj Kumar Mishra for the Appellants.

F V.B. Joshi and Sandeep Singh Tiwari for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ;-- -

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Tilis appeal, by special leave,
is from the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Bombay,
G allowing Writ Petition No.1560of1981, filed by the respondents, on July 19,
1991.

Before adverting to the contentions of the parties it will be appropriate
to refer to the relevant facts. The predecessor- in-interest of the appellants
was the landlord of agricultural land bearing Survey No.238/1 measuring acres
H 2 & guntas 5 in village Kalgaon, District Satara, Maharashtra State (for short,
..,,
M.13. PANDARE i-. V.Y. Cl-I/\ VAN IQUADRI. .I.] 715

'the land'). He filed tenancy case No. 252/61 before the Tenancy Aval Karkun A
Karad (for short, 'the Mamlatdar') against Vyanku Daji Chavan, the tenant of
the land, claiming exemption ce11ificate under sub-section (4) of Section 88C
--"· of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (all sections referred
to in this judgment are of the said Act unless otherwise stated). During the
pendency of the tenancy case both the landlord as well as the tenant died.
The appellants are the legal representatives of the landlord and the respondents B
are the legal representatives of the tenant. By order dated April 26, 1972 the
Mamlatdar granted exemption certificate under sub- section (4) of Section 88C
in favour of the appellants. The aggrieved respondents carried the matter in
appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara Division, who set aside the
order of the Mamlatdar by order dated February 25, 1974. The appellants C
challenged the validity of the said order in the Bombay High Court in Special
Civil Application No. 2526 of 1974. On January 11, 1979 the High Court set
aside the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer holding that for purpose of
Section 88C the total income of the deceased landlord as on April 1, 1957
should be the criteria and not that of the appellants and thus restored the
order of the Mamlatdar by allowing the said writ petition. Immediately thereafte1· D
the appellants terminated the tenancy by issuing notice to the respondents
on January 27, 1979 and making application to the Mamlatdar for possession
of the land for personal cultivation under Section 33B(3)(b) read with Section
29 in March 1979.
E
On August 2, 1979, during the pendency oi the said application, the
respondents applied under Section 880( I )(iv) for revocation of exemption
certificate on the ground that the income of the appellants had exceeded Rs.
1500 per year. The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, having
regard to the order of the High Court in the Writ Petition No. 2526 of 1974
dated January 11, 1979, rejected the application of the respondents as not F
maintainable by order dated January 17, 1981. The respondents assailed the
correctness of that order in the High Court in Writ Petition No.1560 of 1981.
By the impugned order dated July 19, 1991, the High Court quashed the order
of the Additional Commissioner holding that the application for revocation of
the certificate was maintainable and remanded the case for fresh disposal on G
merits. It is that order which is the subject matter of the appeal before us:

The first contention of Mr. A.S. Bhasme, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants, is that as the High Court had restored the order of the
• -" Mam latdar granting exemption certificate in favour of the appellants on the
ground that the annual total income of the deceased landlord as on April I, H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A I 957 was less than Rs. 1,500 which had become final, therefore, now the
income of the appellants cannot be taken into account which would amount
to reopening the issue before the Additional Commissioner in proceedings
under Section 880 as such the High Court erred in quashing the order of the >--.
Additional Commissioner.

B Mr. V.B. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has
argued that Section 880 gives an independent right to the tenant to have the
exemption certificate revoked on establishing, inter alia, that the annual
.income of the landlord had exceeded Rs.1,500, therefore, the conten!ion that
the exemption certificate has attained finality, is untenable.

C Here, it will be useful to read Section 880(1)(iv) under which revocation
of the certificate is applied for and it runs as follows :

"880. Power of Government to withdraw exemption. -

(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 88, 88A, 888 and
D 88C, if the State Government is satisfied, -

(i) to (iii) * * * * * * * * *
(iv) in the case of lands referred to in Section 88C, that the annual
income of the person has exceeded Rs.1,500 or that the total
holding of such person exceeds an economic holding,
E
the State Government may, by order published in the prescribed manner,
direct that with effect from such date as may be specified in the order
such land or area, as the case may be, shall cease to be exempted from
all or any of the provisions of this Act from which it was exempted
under any of the sections aforesaid, and any certificate granted under
F Section 88B or 88C, as the case may be, shall stand revoked.

From a plain reading of the provisions, extracted above, it is evident
that in view of the opening words-a non-obstante clause-Section· 880( I)
overrides Sections 88, 88A, 888 and 88C provided the requirements thereof
G are satisfied. Thus, it follows that a certificate granted under sub-section (4)
of Section 88C which is final in view of sub-section (5), can be revoked under
Section 880( I) if the State Government is satisfied that in the case of.the land
referred to in Section 88C, the total annual income of the person holding the
certificate has exceeded Rs. I ,500 or that the total holding of such person
exceeds the economic holding, as the case may be. It may be noted that for r .
H grant of certificate under Section 88C(4) income of the applicant-landlord as
M. 13. I' J\N f)J\RE 1·. Y. Y. CH/\ VAN IQUADRI, J. j 717

on Apri I I, 1957 is the criteria but for the purpose of revocation of the A
certificate what is relevant is the income of the person holding the ce1tificate
·as on the date of the application for revocation of the certificate. The words
employed in clause (iv), noted above, are, "the annual income of the person
has exceeded Rs.1500,'' They imply that even if on April 1, 1957 the total_
income was not exceeding Rs. 1500 but subsequently it has exceeded that
amount as on the dat.e of the revocation application, clause (iv) will be B
attracted .. Therefore, the first contention of Mr. 8hasme cannot but be rejected.

Mr. 8hasme next contended that after the appellants terminated the
tenancy of the respondents by notice in writing and applied for possession
of the land for bonafide personal cultivation under Section 338, the C
r~spondents could not seek the revocation of the certificate under Section
880. Mr.V.8. Joshi, however, argued that in the absence of any constraint in
·section 880 with regard to either the limitation or the stage of any proceedings,
the respondents could solicit revocation of the certificate and that termination
of tenancy would not bar their application for revocation of the certificate
unless the Mamlatdar has already passed order on the application. D

The germane question that arises for consideration is : whether the
application of the respondents under Section 880(1 )(iv), for revocation of the
exemption certificate granted under Section 88C(4), filed after termination of
their tenancy by issuing notice and filing of"application for possession of the E
land by the appellant, under Section 338 read with Section 29, is maintainable.

It is a common ground that the Act is a beneficial legislation and it
confers valuable rights on the tenants of agricultural lands. Al'nong others
Section 32 provides that on April 1, 1957 (the Tillers' Day) every tenant shall
be deemed to have purchased from his landlord free of all encumbrances, F
subsisting thereon as on that date, the land held by him as tenant. Such
deemed purchase is subject to the provisions of that Section and Sections
32A to 32R. Side by side the benefits conferred on tenants, a few rights of
the landlords are preserved to termiriate tenancy under Sections 14, 31, 43(18)
and in somewhat truncated form, a right embodied in Section 88C read with G
Section 338.

Now, we shall refer to Section 88C. It will be appropriate to quote it here.

"88C. Exemption from certain provisions to lands leased by persons
with the annual income not exceeding Rs. 1,500- H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A (I) Save as otherwise provided by Sections 33A, 338 and 33C,
nothing in Sections 32 to 32R (both inclusive) shall apply to
>-.......
lands leased by any person if such land does not exceed an
economic holding and the total annual income of person including
the rent of such land does not exceed Rs.1,500:

B Provided that the provisions of this sub- section shall not
apply to any person who holds such lands as a permanent
tenant or who has leased such land on pe1111anent tenancy to
any other person.

(2) Every person eligible to the exemption provided in sub-section
c (1) shall make an application in the prescribed form to the
Mamlatdar within whose jurisdiction all or most of the pieces of
land leased by him are situate within the prescribed period for
a certificate that he is entitled to such exemption.

(3) On receipt of such application, the Mamlatdar shall, after giving
D notice to the tenant or tenants of the land, hold inquiry and
decide whether the land leased by such person is exempt under
sub-section ( 1) from the provisions of Section 32 to 32R.

(4) If the Mamlatdar decides that the land is so exempt, he shall
issue a certificate in the prescribed form to such person.

E (5) The decision of the Mamlatdar under sub- section (3), subject
to appeal to the Collector, shall be final."

An analysis of the Section, quoted-above, discloses that sub-section
( 1) of Section 88C postulates : (a) exemption of the land leased by any person,
if such land does not exceed an economic holding and the total annual income
F of the person including the rent of such land does not exceed Rs. 1500, from
the provisions of Section 32 to 32R (both inclusive); (b) the exemption is
subject to the provisions of Sections 33A, 338 and 33C; and (c) the exemption
does not apply to a person who holds such lands as a permanent tenant or
who has leased such land on permanent tenancy to any other person from
G its provisions. Sub-section (2) which is procedural, provides that every person
eligible for exemption under sub-section (I) shall make an application in the
prescribed form, within the prescribed period, for a certificate that he is
entitled to such exemption, to the Mamlatdar within whose jurisdiction all or
most of the pieces of land leased by him are situate. Sub-section (3) castes
an obligation on the Mamlatdar to hold inquiry after notice of such application
H to tenant or tenants of the land and to decide as to whether the land leased
M.B. PAN DARE v. Y.Y. CHAY AN IQUADRI. .I.] 719

by such person is exempt, under sub-section (I), from the provisions of A
Sections 32 to 32R; in other words he has to decide whether the twin
requirements of sub-sectiop (I), namely, (i) the land leased does not exceed
an economic holding and (ii) the total income of the applicant including the
rent of such land does not exceed Rs.1,500, are satisfied.· In the event of the
Mamlatdar deciding that the said requirements are satisfied and therefore the B
land is so exempted, sub-section (4) enjoins on him to issue a certificate in
the prescribed form to such person. Sub-section (5) declares that the decision
of the Mamlatdar under sub-section (3), subject to appeal to the Collector,
shall be final. We have already held above that certificate of exemption issued
under Section 88C(4), notwithstanding its finality, is liable to be revoked
under Section 880( 1). c
Inasmuch as sub-section (1) of Section 88C says 'save as otherwise'
provided by Sections 33A, 338 and 33C, it will be necessary to notice them
here. Section 33A defines two expressions, employed in the aforesaid
provisions: (i) "certificated landlord" to mean a person who holds a certificate ·
issued to him under sub-section (4) of Section 88C but a landlord within the D
meaning of Chapter Ill-AA (a serving member of armed forces) holding a
similar certificate is not included within the meaning of the express.ion; and
(ii) "excluded tenant" to mean a tenant of land to which Sections 32 to 32R
(both inclusive) do not apply by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 88C.

Section 338 confers a special right on the certificated landlords to E
terminate tenancy for personal cultivation. It is necessary to advert to it which
is as follows :

"33B. Special right of certificated landlord to terminate tenancy for
personal cultivation. -
(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 31, 3 I A or 318 a F
certificated landlord may, after giving notice and making an application
for possession as provided in sub-section (3), terminate the tenancy
of an excluded tenant, if the landlord bona fide requires such land for
cultivating it personally.

(2) The notice may be given and an application made by a certificated G
landlord under sub-section (3), notwithstanding that in respect of the
- same tenancy an application of the landlord made in accordance with
sub-section (2) of Section 31-

(i) is pending before the Mamlatdar or in appeal before the Collector,
or in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, on the H
--<
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] 3 S.C.R.

A date of the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred
to in this section as "the commencement date"), or

(ii) has been rejected by any authority before the commencement
date.
B (3) The notice required to be given under sub- section (1) shall be in
writing, and shall be served on the tenant -

(a) before the first day of January 1962, but
(b) if an application under Section 88C is undisposed of and pending

c on that date then within three months of his receiving such
certificate,
and a copy of the notice shall, at the same time, be sent to the
Mamlatdar. An application for possession of the land shall be made
thereafter under Section 29 to the Mamlatdar before the I st day of
April 1962, in the case falling under (a) and within three months of his
D receiving the certificate in the case falling under (b ).

(4~ Where the certificated landlord belongs to any of the following
categories, namely -

(a) a minor, (b) a widow, (c) *** *** ***
E (d)- a person su~ject to any physical or mental disability, then if he
has not given notice and not made an application as required by
sub-sections (I) and (3 ), such notice may be given and such
application made

(A) by the landlord withiri one year from the date on which he, -
F
(i) in the case of category (a) attains majority;

(ii) *** *** ***
(iii) in the case of category (d), ceases to be subject to such physical
or mental disability; and
G
(B) in the case of a widow, by the successor-in-title within one
year from the date on which _widow's interest in the land
ceases :

Provided that, where a person belonging to any category is a
H member of a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not
M.13. l'ANDARE i:. V. V. CHA VAN [QUADRI. .I.] 721

apply if any one member of the joint family does not belong to any A
of the categories mentioned in this sub-section, unless the share of
such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and
bounds before the 3 Ist day of March 1958 and the Mamlatdar on
inquiry is satisfied that the share of such person in the land is
separated (having regard to the area, assessment, classification and B
value of the land) in the same proportion as the share of that person
in the entire joint family property, and not in a larger proportion.

(5) The right of a certificated landlord to terminate a tenancy under
this section shall be subject to the following conditions, that is to
say,-
c
(a) If any land is left over from a tenancy in respect of which other
land has already been resumed by the landlord or his
predecessor-in-title, on the ground that that other land was
required for cultivating it personally under Section 31 (or under
any earlier law relating to tenancies then in force), the tenancy D
in respect of any land so left over shall not be liable to be
terminated under sub-section (1 ).

(b) The landlord shall be entitled to terminate a tenancy and take
possession of the land leased but to the extent only of so much
thereof as would result in both the landlord and the tenant E
holding thereafter in the total an equal area for personal
cultivation - the area resumed or the area left with the tenant
being a fragment, notwithstanding, and notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
F
(c) The land leased stands in the Record of Rights (or in any public
record or similar revenue record) on the 1st day of January 1952
and thereafter until the commencement date in the name of the
landlord himself, or of any of his ancestors (but not of any
person from whom title is derived by assignment or Court sale
or otherwise) or if the landlord is a member of a joint family, in · G
the name of a member of such family.

(6) The tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination
of the tenancy under this Section shall not at any time afterwards be
liable to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide
requires that land for personal cultivation. H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] 3 S.C.R.

A (7) If, in consequence of the termination of the tenancy under this
section, a_ny part of the land leased is left with the tenant, the rent
shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in prop~rtion to the
area of the land so left with the tenant.

A close reading of the section, quoted above, shows that sub-section
B (I) enables a certificated landlord who bona fide requires the land, covered
by the c.e1tificate, for cultivating it personally, to terminate the tenancy of the
excluded tenant by giving him notice and making an application for possession,
in the manner prescribed in sub-suction (3). The said sub-section requires the
certificated landlord to give notice in writing which shall be served on the
C excluded tenant on or before January I, 1962; however, in a case where the
application of such landlord under Section 88C is not disposed of and pending
on that date, he can do so within three months of his receiving such certificate
sending simultaneously a copy of the notice to the Marhlatdar. The application
for possession of the land has to be made under S.ection 29 to the Mamlatdar
J
before April I, 962 in the case where notice was served before April I, 1962
D on the tenant and in a case where notice was served on him within three
months of receiving a certificate under Section 88C, the application can be
made for possession under Section 29 within three months of his receiving
the certificate. The right conferred on a certificated landlord to terminate the
tenancy of an excluded tenant is an independent right and is not affected by
E the provisions of Sections 31, 31 A and 31 B.
It may be noticed here that under the scheme of the Act a landlord's .
right to terminate the tenancy of an agricultural land is regulated by the
provisions contained in Se~tion 31 which enables a landlord to terminate the
tenarrcy of his tenant of an agricultural land for. personal cultivation or for
non-agricultural purposes. Sections 3 IA and 318 incorporate conditions
F subject to which the tenancy shall stand terminated and enumerate cases in
which tenancy cannot be terminated under Section 31.
Sub-section (2) of Section 338 clarifies that even if in respect of the
same tenancy an application of the landlord under Section 31 (2) is pending
before the Mamlatdar or in appeal before the Collector, or in revision before
G the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on the commencement date*; or if it has
been rejected before the commencement date by any authority, notice under
sub-section (I) may be given.

Sub·section (4) which deals with a certificated landlord who is either a
H *The date of commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1960
(Act1Xofl961)
M.B. PAN DARE v. V.V. Cl IAVAN jQUADRI. .I.] 723

minor, a widow or a person subject to any physical or mental disability, is not A
relevant for our purposes.

Sub-section (5) enumerates conditions subject to which the right of the
certificated landlord to terminate a tenancy under Section 338 can be exercised.

A safeguard is provided for the tenant in sub-section (6) which says B
that the tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination of the
tenancy under Section 338 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to
termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires that land
for personal cultivation.

The import of sub-section (7) is to safeguard the interest of the tenant C
by causing proportionate reduction in the rent of the area of the land left with
him in consequence of termination of tenancy under the said section.

This is so far as Section 338 is concerned.

Section 33C contains a further protection for an excluded tenant. It may D
also be relevant to notice the relevant provisions of Section 33C of the Act
here, which read as follows :

"33C. Tenant of lands mentioned in Section BBC to be deemed to
have purchased land and other incidental provisions. -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section E
88C, every excluded tenant holding land from a certificated landford
shall, except as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), be deemed to
have purchased from the landlord, on the first day of April 1962, free
from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the land
held by him as tenant, if such land is cultivated ~y him personally, and F
(i) the landlord has not given notice of termination of tenancy in
accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 338, or

(ii) the landlord has given such notice, but has not made an
application thereafter under Section 29 for possession as required
/-
by the said sub-section (3), or G
(iii) the landlord, not belonging to any of the categories specified in
sub-section (4) of Section 338, has not terminated the tenancy
on any of the grounds specified in Section 14, or has so
terminated the tenancy but has not applied to the Mamlatdar on
or before the 31st day of March 1962 under Section 29 for H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A possession of the land :

Provided that, where the landlord has made such application for
possession, the tenant shall, on the date on which the application is ....
finally decided, be deemed to have purchased the land which he is
entitled to retain in possession after such decision.
B
(2) *** *** *** *** (3) *** *** *** ·*** (4) *** *** *** ***

(5) The provisions of Sections 32 to 32R (both inclusive) shall, so far C.
as may be applicable, apply to the purchase of land by an excluded
tenant under this section.

c., Section 33C, quoted a'Dove, provides for deemed purchase of land, dealt
with in Section 88C, by the exC!uded tenant. A coadunated reading of sub-
sections ( 1) and (3) of Section 33C discloses that notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (I) of Section 88C, every excluded tenant be deemed
to have purchased land held by him as tenant from the landlord on April I,
D 1962 if: (a) such land is cultivated by him personally; (b) the landlord has
not given notice of termination of tenancy in accordance of sub-section (3)
of Section :338; or (c) where the landlord has given such notice but has not
made an application thereafter under Section 29 for possession as required
under the said provision of Section 33Bq); or (d) a landlord, not falling under
any of the categories mentioned in su6-section (4) of Section 338, has not
E terminated the tenancy on any of the grounds specified in Section 14; or (e)
having so terminated the tenancy has not .applied to the Mamlatdar on or
before March 31, 1962 for possession of the land under Section 29. Sub-
sections (2), (3) and (4) are not relevant for the present discussion. Sub-
section (5) declares that the provisions of Sections 32 to 32R (both inclusive)
F will be applicable to the purchase of land by an excluded tenant under Section
33C.

From the examination of the provisions of Section 88C and Section 338,
it is incontrovertible that they are enacted to give relief to landlords having
small parcel of land to enable them to cultivate the land personally and
G augment their meager income. These provisions have, therefore, to be so
interpreted as to make them meaningful and not to render them illusory.

A combined reading of Sections 338 and 33C discloses that for purposes
of terminating the tenancy of an excluded tenant both giving of notice and
filing of an application for possession, are necessary. The certificated landlord
H should take both the steps either within the dates specified therein or within
M.B. PANDARE v. V.Y. CHAY AN (QUADRI, J.] 725
three months from the grant of exemption certificate under Section 88C(4). In A
the event of the certificated landlord not taking the steps, as noted above,

- .~
the deeming provisions of Section 33C will be attracted and the excluded
tenant will be deemed to have purchased the land free from all encumbrances
thereon if such land is cultivated by him personally. Be it noted that the
provisions of Section 33C override the provisions of Section 88C.
B
From the above discussion, it appears to us that where the landlord has
complied with the requirements of Section 338, by giving notice and applying
for possession within the statutory period of three months after receipt of
certificate under Section 88C, the right of the landlord crystallises and the
exemption certificate gets exhausted, therefore, thereafter the excluded tenant C
cannot seek revocation of exemption certificate granted under Section
880(1)(iv). The contention that application for revocation of exemption
certificate under Section 880 will be maintainable till the order is finally
passed by the Mamlatdar on the application for possession of the land,
cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. First, the provisions of .
Sections 88C, 338 and 880(1) cannot be so construed as to Iead,to a situation ·D
where an .excluded tenant by seeking revocation of the exemption certificate
sets at naught the benefit conferred on the certificated landlord who has
complied with the provisions of Sections 33B as it will frustrate the provisions
~.
of Sections 88C as well as 33B for no fault of the certificated landlord; where,
however, the certificated landlord fails to give .notice in writing within the E
prescribed time or having thus given notice, .omits to make application for
possession of the land under Section 29, within the specified period, the
certificated landlord loses the benefit of the exemption certificate as the right
of the excluded tenant to be a deemed purchaser will get revived under
Section 33C. Secondly, when to realise the fruits of the certificate given under
Section 88C(4) the certificated landlord has taken steps unde~ Section 33B F
read with Section 29 and has done what all could be expected of him delay
in disposal of such an application by the Mamlatdar, cannot be allowed to
prejudice the interest of the certificated landlord. Thirdly, a valuable right of
certificated landlord cannot be allowed to be defeated with reference to an
uncertain event i.e. the date of passing of order by the Mamlatdar on the G
application under Section 29, because the period for disposal of the application
may vary from a day to a decade or even more. If two landlords similarly
situated apply for possession before the Mamlatdars in two different areas
under the said provisions or even before the same Mamlatdar and in one case
the order is passed immediately, no application under Section 880( I )(iv) of the
' Act could be entertained against him but in the other case if the proceedings H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] 3 S.C.R.

A are kept pending for some years, for no fault of the certificated landlord, his
position would be vulnerable and the application for revocation of certificate
under Section 88D(l)(iv) would be maintainable against him. It would not be
just and reasonable to adopt such an uncertain criteria. And fourthly, it would
not be in conformity with the scheme of the said provisions to prescribe a
B criteria which yields different consequences in similar cases depending upon
the date of passing of the order by the Mamlatdar. In our view, it will,
therefore, be just and reasonable to hold that after a certificated landlord has
complied with the provisions of Section 33B within the specified time, the
application of the excluded tenant under Section 88D(l)(iv) for revocation of
ce11ificate cannot be entertained.
c We shall now advert to the cases cited at the Bar.

The High Court relying on the judgments of Bombay High Court in
Parvatibai Ramchandra Rokade v. Mahadu Tukaram Varkhede, (1967) 69
Bombay Law Reporter 383 and Bandu Kesu Jagadale and Ors. v. Gopinath
D Ramchandra lnamdar and Anr., AIR (1976) 63 Bombay 216 held that the
application under Section 88D(I )(iv) filed by the respondents prior to passing
of final order by the Mamlatdar on the application in terms of Section 33B read
with Section 29 of the Act, was maintainable.

In Parvatibai (supra) the question before the Division Bench of the _,I..
E Bombay High Court was: Whether the right of a certificated landlord to apply
in terms of Section 33B for possession of land from an excluded tenant is
personal to the ce11ificated landlord and lapses on his death or whether it can
be exercised by his successors. In dealing with that question the Division
Bench observed that the object of section 88C was to give some limited
protection to small holders with limited incomes and on their death, the
F successors-in-interest in majority of the cases would also be small holders of
limited income so it would be in conformity with reason and justice to hold
that if a certificated landlord dies before the expiry of the last date for filing
an application for possession in terms of Section 33B, his successors-in-
interest should be able to file such l!_n application within the specified time.
G This case undoubtedly emphasises that protection is given to small land
holders under the said provisions, but it did not deal with the question the
High Court was concerned with.

In Bandu Kesu, (supra) the question before the Division Bench of the
High Court was : Whether the certificate granted to a landlord under Section
H 88C of the Act gets exhausted when the landlord makes an application for
y.
M.13. PAND/\RE v. V.Y. CllAVAN [QUADRI. J.] 727

possession in terms of Section 338 of the Act or only when the Mamlatdar A
makes a final order disposing of the said application of the landlord. There
t:1e landlord obtained the certificate Lmder Section 88C on May 29, 1971 and
llP
_.;,/.._ made an application on November 15, 1971 for obtaining possession of the
land in terms of Section 338 of the Tenancy Act. While that application was
pending the tenants made an application under Section 88D(l )(iv) on July 29,
1972. The said application was disposed of by the Mamlatdar taking the view
B
that such a ce1tificate got exhausted as soon as the landlord has instituted
proceedings under Section 338 of that Act so the question of revocation of
certificate did not survive in cases where proceedings in terms of Section 338
have been started. The Mamlatdar was fottified in his approach by the
_,; judgment of a learned Single fodge of Bombay High Court in Atmaram Onkar c
Talele v. Ananda Shrawan Kolambe, (1970) 72 8om. L.R. 287. However, the
High Court followed an unreported judgment of another Division Bench of
the said court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 868 of 1970 and 2085 of 1973
(Bom.) taking the view that though no express words of limitation or restriction
are to be found in Section 88D of the Act, the scheme of the provisions of
Sections 33B and 33C read with Sections 88C and 88D of the Act would D
suggest that the reasonable limitation that could be put upon the power of
the Government or the Commissioner under Section 88D to entertain an
application for cancellation of exemption certificate thereunder and held that
after the date of final order of the Mamlatdar on the application of certificated
~
landlord in terms of Section 33 B read with Section 29 of the Act, no request E
for cancellation of the exemption certificate under Section 88D(l) would be
entertainabie. While we agree with the conclusion of the Division Bench that
under the scheme of the said provisions reasonable limitation has to be read
in Section 88D, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the date of final
order of the Mamlatdar on the application of the certificated landlord should
be treated as limitation after which no application under Section 88D(l)(iv) F
could be entertained. In our opinion, the proper date should be the date on
which the certificated landlord makes the application in terms of Section 33B
,.. read with Section 29 for possession of the land after giving notice to the
excluded tenant which would meet the ends of justice and on this aspect we
approve the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Atmaram G·
Onkar Talele (supra).

It has been pointed out above that the date of passing of the final order
, by the Mamlatdar on an application under Section :29 read with Section 33 of
.'
.., the Act, is an uncertain factor. Having regard to the various amendments
made in the Act by inserting Sections 88C. 88D, 33B and 33C in the Act and H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (200 I] 3 S:C.R.

A prescribing a period of three months from the date of receipt of certificate
under Section 88C within which the certificated landlord may terminate tenancy
of the excluded tenant by issuing a notice and filing of an application in terms
of Sections 338 read with 29(2) of the Act, and for the afore- mentioned
reasons, in our view, it would be just and appropriate to treat the date of filing
B of an application after notice to the excluded tenant in terms of Section 338
read with Section 29 as the date before which an application for revocation
of exemption certificate under Section 88D(l)(iv) of the Act shall be
maintainable.

In this view of the matter, we cannot sustain the order of the High Court
C under challenge; the order under challenge is set aside and the order of the
Additional Commissioner is restored. The .appeal is accordingly allowed; in
the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.