1961 (12) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules in favor of landlords, tenants ordered to surrender possession.

Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype and others Versus Aba Maruti Mali and others

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Revenue Tribunal. The tenants were directed to hand over ... - Issues Involved:1. Termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent.2. Relief against forfeiture under equitable principles.3. Application of Section 25(1) and 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.4. Authority of Mamlatdar under Section 29(3) of the Act.5. Applicability of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Termination of Tenancy for Non-Payment of Rent:The landlords sought possession of their lands under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, due to tenants' failure to pay rent for three years. The authorities dismissed these applications, either because the tenants had paid the arrears or were given time to pay. In one case, it was ruled that there was no default in payment of rent for three years, thus granting the tenant statutory relief against eviction under Section 25(1) of the Act.2. Relief Against Forfeiture Under Equitable Principles:The authorities granted relief to tenants based on equitable principles, relying on a previous High Court observation that courts should be reluctant to enforce ejectment for non-payment of rent if tenants are willing to pay arrears. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that equitable principles cannot override statutory provisions. The tenancies were terminated under statutory provisions, and equity cannot annul a statute. The authorities erred in granting relief on equitable grounds, as the landlords had acquired a statutory right to possession.3. Application of Section 25(1) and 25(2) of the Act:Section 25(1) allows tenants to continue tenancy by paying arrears and costs within 15 days of the Mamlatdar's order. However, Section 25(2) excludes tenants who have defaulted for three years from this relief. The tenants in these cases were not entitled to relief under Section 25(1) due to their three-year default, thus the landlords were entitled to possession.4. Authority of Mamlatdar Under Section 29(3) of the Act:The Supreme Court clarified that Section 29(3) does not grant the Mamlatdar discretion to refuse possession to landlords based on equitable considerations. The Mamlatdar must act according to the statute, which provides landlords the right to possession upon termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent. The authorities cannot refuse to enforce this statutory right based on perceived hardship.5. Applicability of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act:Section 3 of the Bombay Act states that Chapter 5 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to tenancies under the Bombay Act, unless inconsistent with its provisions. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides relief against forfeiture, is inconsistent with the Bombay Act's provisions. The Bombay Act specifically limits relief to cases under Section 25(1). Therefore, tenants cannot claim relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act for agricultural leases governed by the Bombay Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Revenue Tribunal. The tenants were directed to hand over possession to the landlords. The landlords were entitled to costs throughout. The judgment emphasized the statutory rights of landlords and the limitations on equitable relief in cases of statutory termination of tenancy.