Dismissed

Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad v. Ramdaya C.Kabra(Decd)Lrrs Lilawati R.Kabra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2014WP/1787/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a tenant challenging orders terminating tenancy due to arrears and eviction for bona fide cultivation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding no interference was warranted under Article 227 as lower authorities recorded concurrent findings. Legal heirs succeeded as the original landlord established need. Petitioner not entitled to equity.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited sums with interest.

Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad Vs Ramdaya C.Kabra(Decd)Lrrs… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1787.2001

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1787 OF 2001

¶5

Narayan s/o Ganpat Gaikwad, Since deceased through L.Rs.

¶6

1A) Manik Narayan Gaikwad, age- 45 yrs, Occu. Agri, R/o Karangi, Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar.

¶7

2B) Suresh s/o Narayan Gaikwad, age- 48 yrs, Occu. Agri, R/o as above.

¶8

3C) Kashinath s/o Narayan Gaikwad, age- 47 yrs, Occu. Agri, R/o as above.

¶9

4D) Arun s/o Narayan Gaikwad, age- 30 yrs, Occu. Agri, R/o as above

¶10

5E) Suman w/o Santaji Modak, age- 52 yrs, Occu. Household, R/o Sarvey No. 45, Bharat Forge Road, Ghorpadi, Tq. Haveli, District Pune.

¶11

6F) Vimal w/o Bhanudas Kavade, age- 50 yrs, Occu. Household, R/o Bhagwandas Road, at Post Ghorpadi, Tq. Havelim Dist. Pune.

¶12

7G) Sunanda w/o Mahadev Kavnthe, age- 42 yrs, Occu. Household, R/o Khalad, Tq. Prundhar, District Pune.

¶13

8H) Sharda w/o Maloji Magar, age- 39 yrs, Occu. Household, R/o at Magar Patta, Po. Hadapsar, Tq. Havali, Dist. Pune.

¶14

9I) Yamunabai w/o Ramesh Magar, age- 36 yrs, Occu. Magarpatta, Po Hadapsar, Tq. Havali, District Pune.

¶15

WP1787.2001

¶16

-2-

¶17

10J) Manda w/o Namdeo Bhandale, age- 28 yrs, Occu. Household, R/o Devachi Urali, Tq. Mavelim Dist. Pune. 11K) Kantabai w/o Narayan Kaikawad, Age- 62 yrs, Occu. Household, R/o Karangi, Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners Versus Ramdayal s/o Champalal Kabra (Marwadi), (Since Deceased through Legal Representatives) 1. Smt. Lilawati w/o Ramdayal Kabra (Marwadi) Age : 50 years, Occ : Business. 2. Deepak s/o Ramdayal Kabra (Marwadi), Age : 35 years, Occ : Business. 3. Umesh s/o Ramdayal Kabra (Marwadi), Age : 33 years, Occ : Business. 4. Gopal s/o Ramdayal Kabra (Marwadi), Age : 25 years, Occ : Business All resident of Yewala, Tq. Yewala, District Nasik. …. Respondents .....

¶18

Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners Mr S. B. Gorde Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4

¶19

CORAM : N. W. SAMBRE, J. DATED : 10^th JULY, 2014.

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT : -

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶22

The present petition is by tenant taking an exception to

¶23

the order dated 28^th February, 2001, passed by the Maharashtra

¶24

WP1787.2001

¶25

-3-

¶26

Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in case No. 6/B/2000/AN, the Judgment and order dated 30^th November, 2000, passed by SubDivisional Officer, Sangamner and order dated 12^th September, 1997 passed by Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Kopargaon.

¶27

The respondent-landlord claims to be owner of agricultural land Survey No. 181/2, ad-measuring 13 acres 37 gunthas bearing Gut No. 495.

¶28

The relationship between the present petitioner and the respondent is of tenant and landlord, is not disputed.

¶29

The present respondent moved an application under the provisions of Sections 31 and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Act” for the sake of brevity) praying therein an order against the present petitioners of termination of tenancy and handing over of possession in favour of landlord. The said application for termination of tenancy is moved on two counts (1) failure to pay contract/tenancy amount and (2) land required for bona fide cultivation of the landlord.

¶30

The said application came to be filed on or about 28^th February, 1997 through Power of Attorney Holder of the original

¶31

WP1787.2001

¶32

-4-

¶33

landlord. In the said application, the applicant has pleaded that the land in question was given on tenancy from 29^th August, 1967 for a period of eight years for cultivation of Sugarcane. After the period of said eight years, the tenancy wax extended and amount of rent was increased from Rs. 1,400/- to Rs. 2,500/- with two bags of grains. It is the case of the respondent that, the above referred contract was in the form of oral talk in presence of one Babulal Hiralal Jaju and Dattatraya Ganpat Gaikwad (Nana). The respondents herein alleged before the Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Kopargaon, that the tenancy amount was never paid in time, and since 1975 to 1996 and thereafter an amount of Rs. 52,500/- remained to be paid by the petitioners to the landlord along with the grains as was agreed. The landlord also pleaded that, since the present petitioner for the last 21 years has failed to give 42 bags of grains as was agreed to, are also required to be recovered from the tenant.

¶34

The landlord submitted that, though a demand from time to time was made with the tenant as regards payment of rent amount and the grains as was agreed, the tenant has failed to honour the said demand of the landlord of payment of arrears and grains. The landlord alleged that, as there was default on the part of tenant in payment of rent for three consecutive years, the possession of the land is required to be handed over to the present respondents-

¶35

WP1787.2001

¶36

-5-

¶37

landlord. He submits that, the land in question is also required for the personal bona fide cultivation of the landlord. He submits that, the landlord was suffering from Brain Tumor and he was depending on the income from the above referred land, for meeting the medical expenses incurred. He submits that, there was no other source of income than the income from this agricultural land and there is no other land in addition to the land in question held by the landlord. On the contrary, he submits that, the tenant owns substantial land, which he has transferred in favour of his sons.

¶38

The landlord thereafter submitted that the tenant was served with a notice of termination dated 23^rd August, 1996. In the said notice, though there was a demand of tenancy amount, the same was not honoured. Landlord further submitted that, the said notice of determination of tenancy and demand of arrears was answered by the tenant by its reply dated 16^th November, 1996, denying the claim made by the landlord in the said notice.

¶39

Based upon the above referred factual matrix, the application referred to above came to be moved before the authority.

¶40

The authority has registered the case as Tenancy Case No. 10 of 1997 and decided the same by its order dated 12^th

¶41

WP1787.2001

¶42

-6-

¶43

September, 1997. The said authority i.e. Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Kopargaon, after considering the factual matrix, framed the issues which read thus:

¶44

“1. Whether the relationship exists between the applicant and opponent as landlord and tenant.

¶45

2. Whether the landlord has given notice to the tenant according to law.

¶46

3. Whether the tenant is defaulter.

¶47

4. Whether the landlord require the suit land for bonafide personal cultivation”

¶48

My findings on the above issues are as under.

¶49

1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes"

¶50

The said authority has referred to the pleadings of the landlord, the notice issued by landlord dated 23^rd August, 1996, and reply thereto by the tenant on 16^th November, 1996. The authority as such after considering the payments made by tenant to the landlord and after perusal of the receipts produced by the tenant, has evaluated the same and reached to a conclusion that the tenant has failed to pay arrears of rent and as such held that the tenant is "a defaulter". The said authority has also examined the issue about the requirement of land in question by the landlord for his personal use.

¶51

WP1787.2001

¶52

-7-

¶53

While considering the said contentions of the landlord as regards requirement of the land for personal cultivation, the authority has referred to the Mutation Entry No. 1656 of 1991 in the name of four sons of tenant so as to appreciate the fact about procuring land. The authority as such held that the suit land is required by the landlord for bona fide personal cultivation.

¶54

Having regard to the above, the said authority by order dated 12^th September, 1997 has passed an order. Operative part of which reads thus:

¶55

"The application of the applicant is allowed and it is declared that the opponent tenant is defaulter. The tenant should pay arrears rent Rs.39,800/- within three months. The possession of suit land should be handed over to the landlord on the ground of default as well as for personal cultivation.

¶56

Parties be informed accordingly".

¶57

As a consequences of the above order by the Tenancy

¶58

Awal Karkoon, Kopargaon, the following directions were given by the said authority to the tenant.

¶59

(a) That the opponent tenant is a defaulter.

¶60

(b) The tenant should pay arrears within three months.

¶61

(c) The possession of suit land should be handed over to landlord on the ground of default and also for personal cultivation.

¶62

WP1787.2001

¶63

-8-

¶64

The above referred order passed by the first authority on 12^th September, 1997, was the subject matter of Tenancy Appeal No. 18 of 1997, under Section 74 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner. The first appellate authority has gone into entire details including that of contentions raised by the petitioner in support of his claim in the appeal for quashing of the order passed by the first authority. The said authority after evaluating the entire set of facts evidence and legal provisions, has reached to conclusion that the appeal does not call for any interference, and as such, dismissed the same by order dated 30^th November, 2000.

¶65

While dismissing the appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer Sangamner, also taken note of the fact that, even if the original land owner has expired, his L.R's. shall be entitled for the possession of the property, who are already brought on record. In the present case, the original landlord Ramdayal has expired on 15^th February, 1999 leaving behind his L.Rs., who are impleaded as respondents in the present petition.

¶66

Being aggrieved by both the orders i.e. order passed by the first authority and the Sub-Divisional Officer in an appeal under Section 74, the present petitioners - tenant preferred a Revision

¶67

WP1787.2001

¶68

-9-

¶69

under Section 76 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, vide case No. 6/B/2000/AN. The said revision came to be decided by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, by its judgment dated 28^th February, 2001 by confirming the orders passed by both the authorities below. The revision preferred by the present petitioner came to be dismissed by order dated 28^th February, 2001. As such, present petition.

¶70

While questioning the orders impugned in the present petition, the tenant has invited attention of this Court to the alleged illegalities committed by the authorities while dealing with the case in question. Shri V. D. Salunke, the learned Counsel for the petitionerstenant has vociferously urged that, the case as is sought to be put forth before the authority as regards the arrears of rent and that of bona fide need, is not supported by any finding of law by the authorities concerned. He submits that, what was expected of the authorities was to take into account the contention of the landlord that, whether petitioner was in arrears, whether there was a consistent demand from the landlord on each default within a period of three months from the date of each default and the bona fide need. In support of his contention, he has invited attention of this Court to the law laid down in the judgment in the case of Pandharinath Ramchandra Sutar (deceased) through L.R's. and

¶71

WP1787.2001

¶72

-10-

¶73

others Versus Smt. Numubai Damodhar Sutar and others reported in [1995 (1) Mah LR 405]. He tries to demonstrate that, when claim is sought to be put forth before the authority under Section 25 and recovery of possession is sought, it is mandatory that notice of default, after every three months is required to be given to the tenant. He submits that, failure of the landlord to give such notice dis-entitles him to claim possession of the land on the said ground. He has invited attention of this Court to the observations made by this Court in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the said judgment. Paragraph '4' of the said judgment reads thus:

¶74

“4. In the present case, with the help of the learned Advocate for the respondents, who has very fairly pointed out all material facts on record, the following position emerges. Firstly, both the Courts below viz. the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer found that intimations under Section 25(1) were not given to the tenant. Both the Courts below found that there was no dispute that the tenant was in arrears, but the requirement of Section 25(1) was not fulfilled. Even the notice dated 21st July, 1971 does not stipulate the date on which oral intimation, as alleged, was given to the tenant asking the tenant to pay the rent. Secondly, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in the present case, should not have interfered with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. there is no finding in the impugned order that the Tehsildar or the Sub-

¶75

WP1787.2001

¶76

-11-

¶77

divisional Officer have given a perverse finding. There is nothing to indicate that appropriate intimations were given. there is nothing to indicate that two intimations for 3 year's rent was given. In the above circumstances, both the Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that provisions of Section 25(1) have not been complied with by the landladies. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact regarding non-giving of intimations under Section 25(1) of the Tenancy Act."

¶78

He submits that, perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that, the issue as regards the compliance under Section 25 is not at all looked into and no findings are recorded by the authority in support of the same. He submits that, whether there was a three months' notice for every default, is also required to be established by the landlord by submitting a cogent evidence in support thereof, which is independently required to be evaluated by the authorities in the light of the provisions of the Act. He further submits that, the landlord, whose bona fide requirement is pleaded in the application, has expired on 15^th February, 1999. Once the original landlord has expired and his bona fide need automatically gets extinguished, the bona fide need of the L.Rs. is required to be looked into and assessed independently of that of original owner. He asserts that, the said bona fide need of the landlord was not evaluated by the authorities in its true perspective. He has invited attention of this

¶79

WP1787.2001 -12-

¶80

Court to the judgment of this Court in the case of Dagadu Shivrao Tilekar Versus Kacharushah Mohammad Shah and others reported in [1997 (1) Mah LR 259] , to canvass that, even if the legal heirs after the death of original landlord are brought on record, unless their bonafide need for the land is pleaded and proved, same cannot be granted. Order of competent authorities ordering transfer of possession based upon the bald claim made by the L.R's of landlord cannot be granted. He has invited attention of this Court to the observations made by this Court in paragraph 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment.

¶81

He further submits that, even if there is a default noticed by the authorities in the matter of payment of rent, the authorities must first give an opportunity to the tenant as is contemplated under the Statute to make the payment of arrears. He submits that, no such opportunity was given or offered by the authority in the matter of making of payment of arrears and as such the orders are bad in law. He submits that the said issue is no more res integra as is held in 1997(3) Bom.C.R. 353 .

¶82

Mr V. D. Salunke, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, it was expected of the first authority to pass an order

¶83

WP1787.2001 -13-

¶84

holding that the present petitioner is in arrears and to give him an opportunity to make the payment of arrears.

¶85

While countering the above referred submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord has invited attention of this Court to the concurrent findings recorded by all the authorities, answered in favour of the landlord. He submits that, the law on the above referred issue is well settled as this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will have very limited scope in interfering with concurrent findings given by the authorities. He submits that, once all the (three) authorities below, whose orders are impugned in the present petition, have held in his favour, there is no question that this Court merely for request of the petitioner, should interfere in the matter.

¶86

While controverting the submissions of petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent - landlord has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shaniwar Dhondu Dharnekar v. Smt. Prabhavati Chandrakant Patange reported in AIR 1980 Bombay 276 . He has placed reliance on the observations made by this Court in paragraph 6 of the said judgment. He has also tried to urge based upon the observations made in paragraph 6 that, the opportunity of making payment of arrears to the landlord is of hardly

¶87

WP1787.2001 -14-

¶88

any assistance once it is established that the tenant was in arrears and has consistently failed to pay the rent. In addition to the above, he has invited attention of this Court to the judgment delivered in the matter of Gunabai w/o Sahebrao Raithurkar Versus Kumari Ujwala Sujansingh Jadhavrao n/j Laxmibai S. Jadhav & others reported in 1980 Bom.C.R. 93 in support of the above referred contentions.

¶89

He has taken me through the pleadings made in the application put forth before the first authority so as to canvass that, there was sufficient pleadings in support of claim, which is answered in favour of the respondent. He submits that, on both the counts i.e. the failure on the part of the tenant to pay the rent and the requirement of land by the landlord for bona fide cultivation, are rightly evaluated based upon the pleadings, evidence that was brought on record. He submits that, once the findings of fact are recorded by the authorities below, this Court has no authority to reverse the same unless they are found to be perverse. He further submits that, the contentions of the tenant that he was not given an opportunity to make the payment of arrears is also required to be rejected as according to him, the first authority has directed the

¶90

tenant to pay the arrears of Rs. 39,800/- within a period of three months, however, the tenant has chosen to challenge the same. He

¶91

WP1787.2001

¶92

-15-

¶93

submits that, the said authority in fact has taken into account the receipts which were produced by the tenant in support of the contention that the rent amount was paid to the landlord. He submits that, the authority having reached to conclusion that, there is failure on the part of the tenant to pay the rent, there is no question of this Court coming to the help of such defaulter-tenant. He further submits that, the fact that the application was filed by the tenant through Power of Attorney holder as the landlord Ramdayal was suffering from serious ailment of brain and he was in dire need of land is required to be appreciated by giving due weight-age to the same. He submits that, even after the landlord has expired, the claim of the L.Rs. is looked into and rightly ascertained by the first appellate authority. He submits that, at the relevant time the pleadings qua the source of income of the family of Ramdayal i.e. the land in question, was very much pleaded. The fact that, the said Ramdayal at the relevant time was suffering from the Brain Tumor is also not disputed by the tenant so also source of income from the land in question. He has invited attention of this Court to the finding recorded by the SubDivisional Officer in his order that, the tenant is holding additional land.

¶94

Having considered rival contentions of the parties and

¶95

after evaluation of the judgments cited by the parties, it appears that

¶96

WP1787.2001

¶97

-16-

¶98

all the authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner-tenant. The authorities have reached to the conclusion that, present petitioner was in arrears of the rent and has not honoured the order passed by the first authority to pay the arrears within a period of three months. As such, in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, to appreciate the said fact qua the conduct of the petitioner about non-payment of arrears, in my opinion, is not open for appreciation. Once the authority has given a finding that the tenant was in arrears of rent and he should make good such arrears by making payment within a period of three months, failure on the part of the tenant, approval of the said orders by all the authorities, left hardly any scope for this Court to interfere in such findings. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Pandharinath Versus Smt. Numubai (cited supra), in the above set of facts, is wholly misplaced. In my opinion, once the landlord has established his bona fide/ personal need as prevailing on the date when the application was moved, just because landlord has expired during the pendency of the proceedings and he has made out a sufficient case as regards requirement of bona fide need of the landlord and his family members, in my opinion, is sufficient enough so as to dwell upon the controversy that the case of the legal heirs of the original landlord was not established independently or pleaded independently. The

¶99

WP1787.2001

¶100

-17-

¶101

need of the landlord is required to be taken note of on the date of filing of the complaint and not of the date when he expires. The landlord in 1997 in clear terms has pleaded that the land in question is the only source of income of his family. Once the said fact is proved coupled with the fact and the evidence that the tenant is holding separate land which he has transferred and mutated in the name of his four sons, in my opinion it is sufficient to hold that the need of his legal heirs is not required to be established independently as landlord has established the need of the family.

¶102

The next contention of the petitioner that, the opportunity to make payment of arrears is not offered by the authorities even if it is held that the petitioner was in arrears of the rent which fact is required to be rejected in view of the fact that the petitioner has chosen to reply the notice dated 23^rd August, 1996 issued by the landlord. In the said notice, though arrears of rent was demanded, petitioner has chosen to reply the same denying the liability to pay arrears. The fact that the first authority having evaluated the evidence about payment of rent made by the tenant to the landlord with observations that the tenant should pay the arrears are not honoured by the tenant, takes this Court to the only conclusion that the tenant is not entitled for any equity from this Court.

¶103

WP1787.2001

¶104

-18-

¶105

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and after evaluating the same, this Court has reached to conclusion that no case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. This Court has also reached to conclusion that the conduct of petitioner does not call for any equity qua exercising the jurisdiction in his favour in the matter of failure to issue the notices of demand and not providing the opportunity to the petitioner tenant to make good the payment of arrears after reaching to conclusion that the tenant remains in arrears. In my opinion, all the above referred conclusions, based upon the facts of the present case, are squarely governed by the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Shaniwar Dhondu Dharnekar (cited supra). The observations made by this Court in paragraph 6 of the said judgment are worth reproducing :-

¶106

" 6. Having heard the counsel on both the sides, it must be held that having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in committing successive defaults, no relief should be granted to him in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not bound to interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities below. Even if the lower court has committed an error of law, every error need not be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless it appears that there is a failure of justice at the hands of the lower courts. The extraordinary but limited power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶107

WP1787.2001

¶108

-19-

¶109

India is to see that the lower authorities worked within the bounds of law or give fair opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their rival contentions. Even if there is an error in respect of interpretation of a particular section of the Act, this court is not bound to interfere with the said finding or judgment, while entertaining an application under Article 227. The tenant continued to be in possession of the two lands which are more than 22 acres for nearly 10 years without payment of rent. The landlady is a widow and it appears that those lands are the main source of income for her maintenance. In the said circumstances I will be justified in law not to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. The Supreme Court, however, directed this court to decide two important points raised by the petitioner viz. as to whether the intimation as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Bombay Tenancy Act should be served on the tenant within the period of three months and as to whether there should be a separate notice terminating the tenancy of the tenant as contemplated by Section 14 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Section 25 (1) empowers the authority to grant a relief against the forfeiture if it is found that the tenancy of the tenant has been terminated for non-payment of rent and the landlord has filed the proceedings to eject the tenant, the Mamlatdar shall call upon the tenant to tender to the landlord the rent in arrears together with the cost of the proceeding within three months from the date of order, and if the tenant complies with such order, the Mamlatdar shall, in lieu of making an order for ejectment, pass an order directing that the tenancy, had not been terminated and thereupon the tenant shall hold the land as if the tenancy

¶110

WP1787.2001

¶111

-20-

¶112

had not been terminated. So far as Sub-section (2) of Section 25 is concerned, the right to give relief against the forfeiture to the tenant is taken away, if the tenancy of the tenant is terminated for non-payment of rent if he has failed for any three years to pay rent and the landlord has given intimation to the tenant to that effect within a period of three months on each default. There are two requirements of the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section 25, (a) that the tenant must be in arrears of rent for the period of three years and (b) that the landlord must give an intimation to the tenant within a period of three months on each default. In the present case there is no dispute that there is concurrent finding of fact that the tenant has committed defaults for the period of three years. The tenant should have paid the rent of the lands in dispute on or before every revenue year i. e. 31st May and within three months thereafter means 31st Aug. Admittedly the intimations have been given before the end of August for each default, but the intimations have not been served on the petitioner before 31st Aug. of the year on each default. The language used in Subsection (2) of Section 25 is "if the landlord has given intimation to the tenant to that effect within a period of three months on each default." It is nowhere stated that the intimation is to be served within the period of three months. What is contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 25 is that it is obligatory on the part of the landlord to give intimation to the tenant of his default within the period of three months on each default. The dictionary meaning of the word 'intimation' is "to make known, announce, notify by legal process, to make known or communicate by any means however indirect, to signify, to indicate, to imply, to suggest, to hint at". From this

¶113

-21-

¶114

dictionary meaning, it does not appear that the service is necessary of such intimation on the person concerned. By the legislature, the landlord is directed to signify, to notify, to announce that the tenant has committed defaults in payment of rent or compensation. The fact that the defaults have been committed is best known to the tenant. However, the legislature intended that an opportunity should be given to the tenant to pay the rent if possible after the intimations are given by the landlord. If the legislature intended that the intimation contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 25 is to be served on the tenant within the period of three months, the language employed in section would have been quite different Instead of the language employed in Sub-section (2) of Section 25 "that if the landlord has given intimation to the tenant", the language would have been in the said sub-section "that if the landlord serves the intimation to the tenant within three months". Having regard to the scheme of Section 25, as a whole, It appears that every year the landlord is called upon to give intimation with regard to default made by the tenant. In case two defaults are made, under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 the Mamlatdar is empowered to give relief against forfeiture directing the tenant to deposit the amount of rent. In case of third default, an intimation to the tenant to that effect would fall within the penalty of law resulting into an order of eviction of the tenant from the land. The words "within the period of three months on each default" must be referrable to landlord giving intimation. The law makes it obligatory on the landlord to intimate, to announce, to make known to the tenant that the default has been committed by him. Now such intimation may reach to the tenant after expiry of the period of three

¶115

WP1787.2001

¶116

-22-

¶117

months. Take a case that the first notice is served on the tenant after the period of three months on default, second intimation is within period of three months and the third intimation is also within the period of three months, will be the tenant in the said circumstances entitled to relief against the forfeiture? Having regard to the language employed in Subsection (2) of Section 25, it does not appear that the legislature intended to give relief to a chronic defaulter. A leniency is shown by Sub-section (1) of Section 25, whereas the law has become harsh on the tenant by Subsection (2) of Section 25 in case he makes continuous defaults for three years. In this view of the matter, I hold that intimation need not be served within the period of three months, but it is sufficient if the intimation is given by the landlord oral or in writing to the tenant which amounted to a communication by the landlord to the tenant that the tenant has failed to pay rent of a particular year. The purpose of intimation is to bring the fact to the notice of the tenant of his failure to pay the rent. "

¶118

The view taken by this Court in the matter of Gunabai w/o Sahebrao Raithurkar (cited supra) qua the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the cases like the present one is also worth to be taken into account.

¶119

Having regard to the above observations, no case for interference made out. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶120

WP1787.2001

¶121

-23-

¶122

The learned Counsel for the respondent at this stage invited attention of this Court to the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) made by the petitioner in this Court in compliance to the order dated 14^th June, 2001 and which was subsequently deposited in Nationalized Bank.

¶123

In view of the dismissal of the present writ petition, the present respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount with interest accrued thereon.

¶124

( N. W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶125

Punde

Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad v. Ramdaya C.Kabra(Decd)Lrrs Lilawati R.Kabra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad v. Ramdaya C.Kabra(Decd)Lrrs Lilawati R.Kabra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Jija Dhakarge and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Vithoba Pawar Vs Vithoba Ramkrishna Pawar and Others

Bhalchand Karbhari Lakhare and Ors. Vs G G Mavale , Asst Registrar Co-Op Societies Akole and Ors.

President Shri Vasantrao Naik Shik.Pra.Man.and Anr. Vs Rajashree Laxmanrao Salve and Anr.

Rajkumar Bandappa Malbhage Vs the President Vidyamrut Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sambhaji Dashrath Patil and Another