Read Time: 07 minutes
The high court had said the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and an interpretation that tilts in favour of the tenant has to be adopted
The Supreme Court recently emphasised that, irrespective of whether the landlord is a minor, a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability, he or she has an irrecusable duty to send an intimation to the tenant before the expiry of the period during which such a landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol dismissed a special leave petition filed by one Vasudeo Dattu Holkar against the Bombay High Court's order of August 10, 2015.
The matter pertained to two hectares and 25 acres of land in a dispute between the petitioner, the landlord, and the respondents, who were recorded as tenants in official records.
The high court had noted that concurrent orders had been passed by three authorities—namely, the Tehsildar, the Agricultural Land Tribunal, and the Maharashtra Land Tribunal—against the petitioner and in favor of the respondents, who were the heirs of the original tenant. The central question was whether a fresh notice was required to be issued to the present petitioner, who was the successor of the landlord, concerning the lands in question.
The high court had held that the concurrent orders passed by the three authorities below did not warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction of the top court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It had dismissed the plea, observing that ultimately, it must be borne in mind that the BTAL Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, and an interpretation favoring the tenant should be adopted.
After hearing the counsel on both sides, the bench said, "We are of the considered view that the fate of this case depends upon the question whether the landlady or the successor of the landlady, in question, was under an obligation to send an intimation to the tenant under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to terminate tenancy".
The court pointed out that the issue was no longer res integra, in view of the decision of a three-Judges bench of the top court in Vasant Ganpat Padave (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Ors Vs Anant Mahadev Sawant (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors (2019).
The court noted that a three-judge bench had resolved the matter by stating that, irrespective of whether the landlord is a minor, a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability, the landlord has an irrecusable duty to send an intimation to the tenant before the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 31 of the 1948 Act.
In view of the law laid down that irrespective of the categories, the bench said, "The landlord is bound to send an intimation to the tenant to terminate the tenancy, before the expiry of period prescribed under Section 31 of the 1948 Act, the petitioner or the successor of the landlady cannot be heard to contend that he was not under an obligation to send an intimation and it is applicable only to a minor landlord".
Case Title: Vasudeo Dattu Holkar Vs Damodhar D+54 hondiba Zambare (Died) Thr His LRs Shri Ghanshyam Damodhar Zambare & Ors +
Please Login or Register
