[Bombay Tenancy Act] Conditions To Be Satisfied By Landlord For Grant Of Certificate U/s. 88C Need Not Be Complied With Till Final Delivery Of Possession: Bombay HC

While allowing the appeal against delivery of possession of agricultural lands situated at Satara district to the Respondent/landlords under Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Bombay High Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for afresh decision only on the point of compliance of the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act of 1948.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar stated that “Since there have been, in effect, two rounds of litigation and more than 60 years have elapsed since the institution of the proceeding to grant certificate under section 88C of the Act, 1948, in my view, it may not be appropriate to remit the matter to ALT, with scope for further rounds of litigation. In the circumstances of the case, it may be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the MRT to examine the issue of compliance of the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act, 1948 and pass an appropriate order. It is hereby made clear that the issue of economic holding and income of the legal representatives shall not be further examined and the matter is remitted to the MRT only for the purpose of determination of the compliance of the conditions stipulated in section 33B of the Act, 1948 and pass appropriate orders.”

Advocate Dilip Bodake appeared for the Petitioner/ Tenant, whereas Advocate Sandesh Patil appeared for the Respondent/ Landlord.

Going by the background of the case, the Petitioner assailed the judgment passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune (Tribunal) in Revision Application whereby the Revision Applications preferred by the Petitioners came to be dismissed affirming the order passed by the SDO, Karad, Dist. Satara in Tenancy Appeal which, in turn, had affirmed the order passed by Tahsildar-ALT, Karad in Tenancy Case thereby allowing the application of the Respondents/ landlords for delivery of the possession of the agricultural lands situated at Dist. Satara (the subject lands) under Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Act of 1948).

The issue for consideration in this petition was whether the aspect of economic holding and annual income of the legal representatives of the certificated landlord under section 88C of the Act of 1948 were required to be inquired into, in the event the certificated landlord passed away during pendency of the proceedings and before delivery of possession under section 32B of the Act of 1948.

While navigating through various provisions of the Act of 1948 vis-à-vis Section 6 and Section 33A, the Bench observed that the said Act was a beneficial legislation and had been enacted to confer the protective rights on the tenants of agricultural lands.

“A prime protection given by the Act, 1948 is the deemed purchase of the agricultural land held by a tenant from the landlord free from all encumbrances on the 1st April, 1957 (tiller’s day). Such deemed purchase is subject to the provisions of section 32 and the succeeding sections i.e. 32A to 32R”, added the Bench.

The High Court explained that under Section 33B of the Act of 1948, a certificated landlord who bona fide required the land, in respect of which certificate had been granted, for personal cultivation had to terminate the tenancy of excluded tenant by giving him notice and making an application for possession.

Referring to Section 33C and Section 88C, the High Court stated that these provisions had been enacted with the object of providing relief to a class of landlords who held a relatively small tract of land and did not have adequate income so as to enable them to cultivate the land personally and supplement their income.

The Bench stated that to entertain an application under section 33B of the Act of 1948, a certificate under section 88C was a jurisdictional condition, however, it did not imply that the conditions which a landlord was required to satisfy for grant of certificate under section 88C needed to be complied with by the legal representatives of the certificated landlord as well, till the final delivery of the possession of the leased land.

While declining the submission on behalf of the Petitioners that legal representatives of the deceased landlord must also satisfy the said income criteria on the day they were brought on record in proceedings under section 33B of the Act of 1948, the Bench clarified that a landlord having a small holding and meagre income had been extended the benefit of seeking the possession of the land for personal cultivation.

“To the extent the authorities hold that the legality and validity of the certificate under section 88C could not be examined afresh on the touchstone of the compliance of conditions of economic holding and income limit prescribed therein, the said view, in the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law, could not be faulted at”, added the Bench.

The High Court also noticed that the authorities have not at all adverted to the question as to whether the conditions stipulated under sub section (5) of section 33B of the Act have been fulfilled.

“Since the landlords have passed away and their legal representatives have been brought on record, the question of satisfaction of the conditions under Section 33B (5) was required to be determined in the light of the holding of the legal representative, as on the date they were brought on record”, added the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court remitted the matter to the authorities under the Act of 1948 to consider and determine the issue of compliance of the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act of 1948.

Cause Title: Kondiba Dnyanu Dongale v. Kashibai Ramrao Nigade [Neutral Citation No.: 2023:BHC-AS:15097]

Click here to read/download Judgment