# BHAGWANT PUNDALIK & ANR v. KISHAN GANPAT BHARASKAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] 2 S.C.R. 657
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-10-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1409 a00 1721 of 1966
- **Bench:** J. c. SHAH, K. s. llEGDE, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhagwant-pundalik-anr-v-kishan-ganpat-bharaskal-ors-5217
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act
1958, s~. 20 and 36--Surrender of !and by tenant-Neither written nor
verified before Tehsildar-Validity.
·The respondents obtained a lease for cultivation of land. ''on the
landlord's desire to cultivate the land pelrsonally, the respondents surren·
dered the lands to the landlord. The surrender was not in writing nor
was there verification of the surrender by the Tehsildar.
The landlord
cultivated the land for a few year-s, and thereafter granted a lease to the
appellant
The respondents applied under s. 36 of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, for restoration of
possession to them. On the question whether the eviction of respondent
was leaal, this Court,
·
·
HELD : Possession obtained by. the landlord was not lawful, for, he
obtained J>')SSession of the .lands from the tenants without complyina 'with
tho requirement~ of s. 20 and sub-s. (2) of s. 36. Sub-section (2) of s. 36
prohibits the landlord from obtaining poss11ssion of any land beld by a
tenant except un\ler an order of Tahsildar. Delivery of posseslion voluntarily by the respondents did not render possession of the landlord valid.
Under s._36(1) a tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub-s.
(2) may apply' in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession, !659 El
By s. 20 of the Act which deals with surrender it is expressly provided that surrender shall be in writing and shall be verified in the pres·
oribed manner.
Surrender of tenancy which does not comply with the
requirements of s. 20 is ineffective. Again the terms of suli-s. (2) of
s. 36 are explicit; they are not subject to any implication that possession
obtained with the consent of the . tenant, but without an order of the
Tahsi!dar is valid. L659 HJ
·
In the present case there is no surrender of tenancy in writing and no
varification of surrender by the Tahsildar.
•
Madho SI o Talya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 206/1967 dt, 11-12-1969, followed.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1409
a00 1721 of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 15, 1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in
Special Civi.l Application Nos. 746 and 747 of 1964.
S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta. for the appellants (in both the
appeals).
M. S. Gupta, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.A. No. 1409
of 1966.
s, S. Khanduja, for respondent No. 3 (w both the appeals).
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 2 S.C.R.
The J udgm•nt of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.-Badridas son of Ramgopal was the owner of fields
Survey Nos. 2 and 9 /2 of village Bhamberi, taluq Akot, District
Akola. On February 26, 1958, Badridas granted a lease for cultivation of the lands to two brothers Kishan and Manik. At the
end of the agricultural year 1958-59 Badridas took possession of
the. lands from Kishan and Manik representating that he desired
to cultivate the lands personally.
Badridas cultivated the lands
during the agricultural years 1959-60 and 1960-61, and thereafter on January 18, 1961 he granted a lease of the lands for four
years to Bhagwant son of Pundalik Kishan and Manik then applied on June 30, 1961 under s. 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, for an order
restored them to possession alleging that their eviction from the
lands was illegal . The Additional Tahsildar dismissed the application, but in appeal the order was reversed.
In the view of the
appellate authority Kishan and Manik were in 1958-59 tenants of
the lands and they were evicted otherwise than in accordance .with
the. law, and that they were entitled to be restored to possession
under s. 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
· (Vi<larbha Region) Act, 1958. In a petition by Bhagwant the
Revenue Tribunal reversed the order of the appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that since Kishan and Manik had given up possession of the lands volutaril

## Text

• '
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
657
BHAGWANT PUNDALIK & ANR.
v.
KISHAN GANPAT BHARASKAL & ORS.
October 19, 1970
[J. c. SHAH, K. s. llEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act
1958, s~. 20 and 36--Surrender of !and by tenant-Neither written nor
verified before Tehsildar-Validity.
·The respondents obtained a lease for cultivation of land. ''on the
landlord's desire to cultivate the land pelrsonally, the respondents surren·
dered the lands to the landlord. The surrender was not in writing nor
was there verification of the surrender by the Tehsildar.
The landlord
cultivated the land for a few year-s, and thereafter granted a lease to the
appellant
The respondents applied under s. 36 of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, for restoration of
possession to them. On the question whether the eviction of respondent
was leaal, this Court,
·
·
HELD : Possession obtained by. the landlord was not lawful, for, he
obtained J>')SSession of the .lands from the tenants without complyina 'with
tho requirement~ of s. 20 and sub-s. (2) of s. 36. Sub-section (2) of s. 36
prohibits the landlord from obtaining poss11ssion of any land beld by a
tenant except un\ler an order of Tahsildar. Delivery of posseslion voluntarily by the respondents did not render possession of the landlord valid.
Under s._36(1) a tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub-s.
(2) may apply' in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession, !659 El
By s. 20 of the Act which deals with surrender it is expressly provided that surrender shall be in writing and shall be verified in the pres·
oribed manner.
Surrender of tenancy which does not comply with the
requirements of s. 20 is ineffective. Again the terms of suli-s. (2) of
s. 36 are explicit; they are not subject to any implication that possession
obtained with the consent of the . tenant, but without an order of the
Tahsi!dar is valid. L659 HJ
·
In the present case there is no surrender of tenancy in writing and no
varification of surrender by the Tahsildar.
•
Madho SI o Talya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 206/1967 dt, 11-12-1969, followed.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1409
a00 1721 of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 15, 1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in
Special Civi.l Application Nos. 746 and 747 of 1964.
S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta. for the appellants (in both the
appeals).
M. S. Gupta, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.A. No. 1409
of 1966.
s, S. Khanduja, for respondent No. 3 (w both the appeals).
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 2 S.C.R.
The J udgm•nt of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.-Badridas son of Ramgopal was the owner of fields
Survey Nos. 2 and 9 /2 of village Bhamberi, taluq Akot, District
Akola. On February 26, 1958, Badridas granted a lease for cultivation of the lands to two brothers Kishan and Manik. At the
end of the agricultural year 1958-59 Badridas took possession of
the. lands from Kishan and Manik representating that he desired
to cultivate the lands personally.
Badridas cultivated the lands
during the agricultural years 1959-60 and 1960-61, and thereafter on January 18, 1961 he granted a lease of the lands for four
years to Bhagwant son of Pundalik Kishan and Manik then applied on June 30, 1961 under s. 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, for an order
restored them to possession alleging that their eviction from the
lands was illegal . The Additional Tahsildar dismissed the application, but in appeal the order was reversed.
In the view of the
appellate authority Kishan and Manik were in 1958-59 tenants of
the lands and they were evicted otherwise than in accordance .with
the. law, and that they were entitled to be restored to possession
under s. 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
· (Vi<larbha Region) Act, 1958. In a petition by Bhagwant the
Revenue Tribunal reversed the order of the appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that since Kishan and Manik had given up possession of the lands volutarily and had allowed Badridas to cultivate the lands for the following two years, they had no right to be
reinstated into possession of the lands, especially after tb.e lands
were let out by Badridas to Bhagwant. Kishan and Manik then
moved in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, two Special Civil
Applications Nos. 746 and 747 of 1964 in respect of the two fields
Survey Nos. 2 and 9/2 separately. The High Court set aside the
order of the Revenue Tribunal and directed that an order for possession be made in favour of Kishan and Manik in ·respect of the
two lands. With special leave, these appeals have been preferred
by Bhagwant.
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha
Region) Act, 1958, was brought into force on December 30, 1958,
Section 20 provides :
"A tenant may terminate the tenancy at any time by
surrendering his interest of a tenant in favour of the
landlord.
Provided that such surrender shall be in writing and
shall be verified before the Tahsildar in the prescribed
manner.''
'
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
•
B
c
D
,,
E
F
G
H
1!HAGWANT v. KISHAN (Shah, /,)
Sectfon 3 6 of the Act provides :
( 1 ) A tenant .
. entitled to possession of any land .
.
.
. under any of the provisions of this Act or as a result of eviction in contravention of sub-section (2) may apply in writing for each
possession to the Tahsildar .
(2) No landlord shall obtain possession of any land,
659
,
.
.
held. by a tenant except under an order
of the Tahsildar. For obtaining such order he shall
make an application in the prescribed form and within
a period of two years from the date on which the right
to obtain possession of the land, .
.
.
. is deemed to have accrued to him :
"
For the agricultural year 1958-59 Kishan and Manik weretenants in respect of two lands in question.
Badridas took possession of the lands at the end of that year. Granting that Kishan
and Manik delivered the lands voluntarily, there could not under
S-20 of the Act be a valid surrender, unless the surrender was 1h
writing and verified before the Tahsildar and in the prescribed
manner.
Possession obtained by Badridas was not lawful, fot·
Badridas obtained possession of the land from the tenants without
complying with the requirements of s. 20 and of sub-s. (2) of s. 36.
Sub-section (2) of s. 36 prohibits the landlord from obtaining pos-·
session of any land held by a tenant except under an order of the
Tahsildar.
Delivery of possession voluntarily by Kishan and
Manik did not render the possession of Badriilas valid. Under s.
36(1) a tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub-s. (2)
may apply in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession.
Coul)sel for the appellant contended that s. 36(2) does not
commence with the expression "Notwithsta.nding any agreement,.
usage, decree or order of a court of Jaw" as s. 19 of the Act does,
and on that account it may reasonably be inferred that the Legislature intended that only those tenants shall be deemed entitled to
possession within the meaning of s. 3 6(1) who were dispossessed
by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, and not tenant who haa
voluntarily parted with possession of the lands.
We are unable
to agree with that contention. Section 19 provides that notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court of law
tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall not be terminated except
in the cases specified therein. Thereby it was intended .to. make
the provisions of s. 19 paramount. In s. 2(1 of the Act which dea!s
with surrender it is expressly enacted that surrender shall be m
writing and shall be verified in the prescribed· manner. Surrender
of tenancy which does not comply with the requirements of s. 20 ·
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
is ineffective. Again, sub-s. (2J of s. 36 imposes a disability upon
the landlord from obtaining possession of any land occupied by a
tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar. The terms of subs: (2). of s. 36 are explicit : they are rtot subject to any implication
that possession obtained with the consent of the tenant, but without an order of the Tahsildar is valid
In a recent judgment Madhao s/o Tatya Sonar v. The
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors.(') the High Court of
Bombay held thats. 36(2) is plenary and controls s. 20 of the Act.
In the present case there is no surrender of tenancy in writing and
no verification of surrender by the Tahsildar. We need express 110
opinion on the question whther mere verification by the Tahsildar
without an order of the Tahsildar authorising the landlord to
obtain possession disentitles the tenant to claim possession under
s. 36(1).
The appeals fail and are dismissed. Having regard to al! the
circumstances, however, we think, there should be no order as to
costs in this Court.
Counsel for the appellant Bhagwant submitted that there are
crops standirtg on the lands, and prayed that the appellant may be
a Uowed to reap them.
One month's time from the date of this
judgment is given to the appellant to deliver possession of the
lands.
Y.P.
(I) Special Civil Application No. 206 of 1967
·decided on September 11/12, 1969.
Appeals dismissed.
A
•
B
c
D
'