Statutory tenancy termination limits equitable relief and preserves prior rent default under the Bombay Tenancy Act.

A tenancy terminated under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was treated as terminated by statute, so equity could not be used to defeat the landlord's statutory right to possession. Section 29(3) was read as permitting only orders consistent with the Act, and section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was held inapplicable. The text also explains that a prior rent default remains relevant under section 25(2) even after relief is obtained under section 25(1), because such relief does not erase the underlying default. The statutory bar therefore applies once the prescribed three-year default condition is met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tenants whose tenancies had been validly terminated under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 could still obtain relief against eviction on equitable principles, or under the discretionary language of section 29(3), or by resort to section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (ii) Whether, for the bar contained in section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, a prior default in rent payment continued to count even after the tenant had obtained relief under section 25(1).

Issue (i): Whether tenants whose tenancies had been validly terminated under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 could still obtain relief against eviction on equitable principles, or under the discretionary language of section 29(3), or by resort to section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The termination of tenancy was held to be under the statute, not merely under contract. Once the statutory conditions for termination were satisfied, the landlord acquired a statutory right to possession, and equity could not be used to defeat that right. The words in section 29(3) empowering the Mamlatdar to pass such order as he deems fit were read as enabling orders in accordance with the Act, not as a free-standing power to ignore the statutory scheme or to withhold possession on notions of individual fairness. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was also held inapplicable because the Bombay Act was inconsistent with any broader equitable relief against termination for non-payment of rent.

Conclusion: The tenants were not entitled to equitable relief, section 29(3) did not authorise refusal of possession contrary to the Act, and section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could not be invoked.

Issue (ii): Whether, for the bar contained in section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, a prior default in rent payment continued to count even after the tenant had obtained relief under section 25(1).

Analysis: Section 25(2) was construed as withdrawing the benefit of section 25(1) where the tenant had failed for any three years to pay rent within the period fixed by section 14. Relief under section 25(1) was treated as preventing the termination from becoming effective, but not as erasing the underlying default. The default therefore remained a relevant default for section 25(2), and there was no basis for treating it as merged in the order granting relief. The provision was read as a legislative limit on relief, not as a mere procedural step that could be nullified by earlier indulgence.

Conclusion: A default for a year continued to count under section 25(2) even if relief had earlier been granted under section 25(1); the tenants were barred from relief once the three-year default condition was met.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme entitled the landlords to possession, and the orders denying possession to them were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tenancy is terminated in accordance with a statute, equity cannot be used to defeat the landlord's statutory right to possession, and any statutory relief against eviction must be confined to the limits expressly created by the enactment.

---