Gunabai W/O Sahebrao Raithurkar vs Kumari Ujwala Sujansingh Jadhavrao N/J Laxmibai S. Jadhav And Ors. on 18/9/1979

JUDGMENT

P.S. Shah, J.

1. There is no merits in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the tenant of an agricultural piece of land.

2. It is the common ground that the provisions of section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, are applicable to this land.

3. A few relevant facts are that the petitioner was in possession of the agricultural land in Consolidation Block No. 438 admeasuring six across and six gunthas as the tenant of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner failed to pay rent consistently for a number of years. The landlady gave intimation of default in payment of rent as required by law. However, inspite of the tenant's attention being drawn by the landlady to the default of payment of rent committed by her, no attempt was made to pay the rent. The respondent landlady, therefore, terminated the tenancy of the petitioner for non-payment of rent for the years 1956-57 to 1967-68 and, therefore, filed an application for possession under sections 29 read with section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

4. The Tahsildar, Baramati, held that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1960-61 to 1968-69 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per annum. Inspite of the fact that the tenant had committed more than three defaults, the Tahsildar took the view that the case fell under section 25(1) of the Act gave him three months time to pay the arrears, failing which he directed that the possession of the land should be restored to the landlady.

5. Both the tenant and landlady preferred appeals. The tenant preferred the appeal contending that there was no default in payment of the rent, while the landlady contending that the case fell clearly under the provisions of section 25(2) of the Act and having regard to the finding of the Tahsildar that there was default of more than three years, it was obligatory on Tahsildar to pass an order for delivery of possession.

6. On a consideration of the evidence, the Deputy Collector confirmed the finding of the Tahsildar on the question of defaults in payment of rent. However, in view of the clear provisions of section 25(2) of the Act, which were applicable to the facts of the case, the Deputy Collector allowed the landlady's appeal and directed restoration of possession of the land to the landlady.

7. The tenant, therefore, preferred a Revision Application before the Revenue Tribunal which confirmed the view taken by the Deputy Collector in appeal and held that having regard to the facts of this case, the provisions of section 25(2) of the Act were attracted and no discretion was left to the Tahsildar to grant relief against forfeiture by giving time to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent. In this view of the matter, the Revenue Tribunal rejected the Revision Application.

8. The tenant, therefore, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

9. Mrs. Bhonsale, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised two contentions; firstly, that the authorities below have wrongly held that the petitioner had committed defaults in payment of rent for the years 1960-61 to 1968-69; secondly, having regard to the facts of this case, the petitioner should be granted relief against forfeiture, as also time may be given to pay the arrears. As far as the first contention is concerned, all the three authorities on a consideration of evidence have concurrently held that the petitioner has committed defaults in payment of rent for the years 1960-61 to 1968-69. This is a concurrent finding of the facts which cannot be disturbed in a petition under Article 227. Mrs. Bhonsale was unable to show that the finding of the three authorities below was passed on wrong appreciation of the evidence in any manner. On the contrary I find that all the three authorities have carefully considered the evidence on record and reached the conclusion that there were defaults in payment of rent for the period from 1960-61 to 1968-69. As far as the second line of the argument of the learned Counsel is concerned, the provisions of section 25(1) are explicit and not mandatory. In this case, the tenant has committed more than three defaults. The landlord has given intimations to the tenant within a period of three months. All the conditions prescribed for the applicability of sections 25 read with section 29 are satisfied in this case. In view of the clear provisions of section 25(2) the tenant is not entitled to avail of the provisions of section 25(1), which give a discretion to the Tahsildar to grant relief to the tenant against forfeiture by making an order directing that the tenancy should not be terminated and instead the tenant be asked to pay the arrears of rent.

10. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition and must be rejected.

11. Rule is discharged.

12. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.