1959 (9) TMI 52 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Reverses High Court Order, Restores Revenue Tribunal Decision. Costs Awarded.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order issuing a writ of certiorari and restoring the Bombay Revenue Tribunal's order. ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. Requirement of notice for termination of tenancy under Section 14 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.3. Applicability of the provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the Bombay Tenancy Act.4. Scope and applicability of writ of certiorari.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:The initial application for possession was made by the respondent in the Revenue Court of the Mamlatdar of Sirsi, who granted the order for possession. However, on appeal, the Collector of Kanara held that the Mamlatdar lacked jurisdiction under the Bombay Tenancy Act to make such an order. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal did not address the jurisdiction issue but focused on the requirement of notice for termination of tenancy. The Supreme Court did not explicitly resolve the jurisdiction issue but implicitly accepted the Tribunal's focus on the notice requirement.2. Requirement of Notice for Termination of Tenancy under Section 14 of the Bombay Tenancy Act:The respondent's claim for possession was based on the lease's express condition and an alleged termination of tenancy. The appellant admitted non-payment of rent for three consecutive years but contended that the respondent had not given notice of termination. The Tribunal held that the landlord must fail because he had not terminated the tenancy by notice before instituting the action for ejectment. The High Court, however, quashed the Tribunal's order, stating that the error was apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court examined Section 14 and concluded that the section does not expressly require notice for termination. The Court also considered the implications of Section 25, which provides relief against termination for non-payment of rent, and determined that the requirement for notice was not self-evident and required lengthy reasoning.3. Applicability of the Provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the Bombay Tenancy Act:Section 3 of the Bombay Tenancy Act states that the provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, apply to tenancies and leases under the Bombay Tenancy Act, provided they are not inconsistent with it. Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, as amended in 1929, requires notice in writing for termination by forfeiture. The Supreme Court considered whether this requirement applied to tenancies created before April 1, 1930. The Court leaned towards an interpretation that favored the beneficial purpose of the Bombay Tenancy Act, suggesting that the notice requirement should apply irrespective of when the tenancy was created.4. Scope and Applicability of Writ of Certiorari:The High Court issued a writ of certiorari, quashing the Tribunal's order and restoring the Mamlatdar's order. The Supreme Court reviewed the principles governing the issuance of certiorari, emphasizing that it corrects errors of jurisdiction or violations of natural justice and does not review findings of fact. The Court concluded that the alleged error regarding the notice requirement was not apparent on the face of the record and required lengthy reasoning. Therefore, it was not a suitable ground for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in issuing the writ and restored the Tribunal's order.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order issuing a writ of certiorari, and restored the Bombay Revenue Tribunal's order. The appellant was awarded costs for the proceedings in the Supreme Court and the High Court.