- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nivrutti Laxman Kondobahiri v. Shivdayal Laxminarayan Sarda And Others Opponents.
Factual and Procedural Background
The Full Bench was called upon to determine whether, under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Mamlatdar has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application filed by a landlord seeking a declaration that an opponent claiming to be a tenant is not a tenant under the Act. The issue arose due to the absence of a specific provision in the Act explicitly authorizing such an application to the Mamlatdar, prompting the court to interpret the scope of the Mamlatdar's powers under the Act.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Mamlatdar can entertain and decide an application filed by a landlord for a declaration that a person claiming to be a tenant is not a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Arguments of the Parties
Landlord's Argument
- The landlord contended that while an application may be made to the Mamlatdar for declaring a person to be a tenant, an application seeking a negative declaration—that a person is not a tenant—is not competent.
- It was argued that the Act's object is to protect tenants by conferring special rights on them, and therefore, an application by a landlord for a negative declaration does not fall within the purposes of the Act.
Court's Response to the Argument
- The court rejected this argument, explaining that the Act regulates landlord-tenant relations and, while it confers rights on tenants, landlords retain certain rights such as terminating tenancies under specified circumstances.
- The jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant necessarily includes deciding that a person is not a tenant, regardless of whether the application is made by the landlord or the tenant.
- The court emphasized that the words "for the purposes of this Act" mean deciding any question related to matters governed by the Act, making it immaterial who makes the application.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Maganbhai Patel v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Special Civil Appln. No. 278 of 1957 | Whether the Mamlatdar has authority to decide if a person is or is not a tenant when the question arises under the Act or in civil proceedings. | Used to illustrate that the Mamlatdar’s jurisdiction extends to deciding tenancy questions arising from both applications under the Act and civil suits, reinforcing the wider meaning of “for the purposes of this Act.” |
| Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji, 55 Bom LR 663 (AIR 1954 Bom 100) | Procedure when a party in a civil suit claims tenant status—requiring referral to the Mamlatdar for determination. | Supported the view that the Mamlatdar’s decision is necessary before or during civil litigation involving tenancy claims, highlighting the exclusivity of Mamlatdar jurisdiction on tenancy questions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by noting the absence of any explicit provision authorizing an application to the Mamlatdar by a landlord seeking a declaration that a person is not a tenant. However, Section 70(b) of the Act assigns the Mamlatdar the duty to decide whether a person is a tenant, a protected tenant, or a permanent tenant. The court reasoned that this power necessarily includes deciding that a person is not a tenant.
The court further analyzed the scope of the phrase "for the purposes of this Act," concluding it is broad and encompasses deciding any question governed by the Act, not limited to proceedings initiated under the Act itself. This interpretation was supported by the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction over tenancy questions under Section 85 and the amendment in Section 85A allowing civil courts to refer such questions to the Mamlatdar.
The court relied on prior decisions, particularly Maganbhai Patel and Dhondi Tukaram, to affirm the Mamlatdar’s jurisdiction in tenancy disputes, whether raised in civil suits or separate applications.
Additionally, the court referred to Sections 4 and 74 of the Act. Section 4 deems lawful cultivators tenants except in specified cases, and Section 74(1) contemplates appeals to the Collector from Mamlatdar orders under Section 4, implying the Mamlatdar’s competence to entertain tenancy applications.
Addressing the landlord’s argument against negative declarations, the court emphasized that the Act regulates landlord-tenant relations in a balanced manner, allowing landlords to terminate tenancies under certain conditions. Therefore, the Mamlatdar’s jurisdiction to declare a person not a tenant aligns with the Act’s purpose.
Holding and Implications
The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that a Mamlatdar can entertain and decide an application for a declaration that a person is or is not a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
This decision confirms the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar over tenancy status determinations, including negative declarations, regardless of whether the application is made by the landlord or tenant. The ruling clarifies procedural avenues for resolving tenancy disputes, reinforcing the ouster of civil courts’ jurisdiction in such matters. No new precedent beyond the direct effect on the parties was established.
Chainani, C.J:— The question referred to the Full Bench is whether, under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Mamlatdar can entertain and decide an application filed by a landlord for a declaration that his opponent, who claims to be his tenant, is not a tenant under the said Act.
2. There is no specific provision in the Act providing for such an application being made to the Mamlatdar. Section 70, however, provides:
“For the purposes of this Act the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the Mamlatdar—
(b) to decide whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant or a permanent tenant.”
3. It is, therefore, the duty and function of the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant. The power to decide whether a person is a tenant, necessarily includes the power to decide that a person is not a tenant. This power is, however, to exercised by the Mamlatdar, as stated in this section, for the purposes of the Act. In view of these words in the section, in Maganbhai Patel v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Special Civil Appln. No. 278 of 1957, the learned Judges were inclined to take the view that the Mamlatdar “will have authority to decide the question whether a person is or is not a tenant”, if that question arises in an application made under the Act, such as an application under section 29 of the Act. If this had been the intention of the Legislature, it would have used some such words as. “In any proceeding under the Act or in any application made under the Act.” The words used “For the purposes of this Act” are very much wider. The other difficulty in accepting this view is the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters which, under the Act, are to be decided by the Mamlatdar. Section 85 of the Act provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar. The question whether a person is a tenant or not a tenant, can therefore only be decided by a Mamlatdar, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine such a question is ousted by section 85 of the Act. If, therefore, in a Civil suit, the question arises whether a person is a tenant or not, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to decide it. Section 85A of the Act, as amended in 1956, enables the Civil Court to refer such a question to the Mamlatdar for determination. This amendment came into force with effect from 1st August 1956. Before that date, the Civil Court had no authority to refer any question for determination to the Mamlatdar. The only course open to it was to ask one or the other of the contending parties to make an application to the Mamlatdar and obtain his decision in the matter. It was so held by a Division Bench of this Court in Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji, 55 Bom LR 663 : (AIR 1954 Bom 100). It was held in that case that in a suit filed against the defendant for possession of agricultural lands on the footing that he is a trespasser, if he raises a plea that he is a tenant or a protected tenant, the proper procedure to adopt would be to direct the party, who raises such a plea, to obtain a decision from the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. For this purpose, the party would have to apply to the Mamlatdar and the application would be for a declaration that the applicant is a tenant. That a reference to the Mamlatdar is necessary in such cases was also recognised in Maganbhai's case, (Special Civil Appln. No. 278 of 1957). In the last but one paragraph of the judgment in that case, it has been observed that if ah issue arises in Civil suit as to whether a person is or is not a sub-tenant (or a tenant), that issue would be one for the Mamlatdar to decide upon a reference by the Civil Court. The Mamlatdar can therefore decide this question, even if it arises in a proceeding other than a proceeding under the Tenancy Act. If the Mamlatdar has jurisdiction to decide the question, after it arises in a Civil Court, he will also have jurisdiction to decide it before it arises in the Civil Court. A party may frequently find it more convenient to approach the Mamlatdar before he files a civil suit. The Act also contains no provision Under which the exercise of jurisdiction by the Mamlatdar is made dependent upon the issue arising in a civil suit, or in some other proceeding under the Act.
4. It follows that an application for a declaration that a person is a tenant can lie before the Mamlatdar. This view finds support in the provisions of Ss. 4 and 74 of the Act, Section 4 provides that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant, except in the cases specified in the section. This section does not however, contain any provision for an application to the Mamlatdar, for declaring a person (to be a tenant. Sub-section (1) of section 74 provides that an appeal may be filed to the Collector against an order of the Mamlatdar made under section 4. Section 74, therefore, contemplates an application being made to the Mamlatdar under Section 4 and the Mamlatdar's making an order upon it. The necessary inference therefore is that the Mamlatdar is competent to entertain an application for a declaration that a person is a tenant.
5. It has, however, been urged that while an application may be made to a Mamlatdar for obtaining a declaration that a person is a tenant, an application for a negative declaration that a person is not a tenant, is not competent. It has been contended that the object of the Act is to protect tenants and that it confers special rights upon them and that consequently, where the owner of a land alleges that person is not a tenant or that he is not entitled to the protection of the Act, the application cannot be said to be one for the purposes of the Act. There does not seem to us to be much force in this argument. The purposes of the Act are, as will be seen from the preamble, to regulate the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands. While the Act confers extensive rights on tenants, the landlords are not deprived of all their rights — For instance, they can terminate the tenancies and resume possession of their iands in certain circumstances. Under section 29, both the landlords and the tenants can apply to the Mamlatdar for obtaining possession of lands. Under clause (b) of section 70 of the Act, the Mamlatdar has jurisdiction to determine whether a person is a tenant. He can therefore also decide that a person is not a tenant. If he can decide this question, on an application made to him by a tenant, it is difficult to understand why he should not be able to decide this question, when the application is made by the landlord. In either case, the question which the Mamlatdar will have to determine is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The jurisdiction to decide this question vests exclusively in the Mamlatdar and the Civil Court is not competent to decide it. This question will also have to be determined by reference to and in the light of the provisions of the Act as to who are and who are deemed to be tenants and as to how and in what circumstances a tenancy can be terminated. Such a determination will therefore be for the purposes of the Act. The words “for the purposes of this Act” in our opinion, mean for the purposes of deciding any question relating to a matter, which is regulated or governed by the provisions of this Act. If, therefore, the question raised before the Mamlatdar relates to a matter, which is to be decided by reference to the provisions of the Act, its determination by the Mamlatdar will be for the purposes of the Act and it is immaterial whether the application raising the question is made by the landlord or by the tenant.
6. We are accordingly of the opinion that a Mamlatdar can entertain and decide an application for a declaration that a person is or is not a tenant.
7. The reply to the question referred to the Full Bench will, therefore, be in the affirmative.
IC/R.G.D
Reply accordingly.
Alert