# CASE DETAILS KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS v. MURALIDHAR (D) & ORS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 939
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-10-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11104 of 2014
- **Bench:** S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-keshav-bhaurao-yeole-d-by-lrs-v-muralidhar-d-ors-36798
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed
in ordering remand of the matter for examination of afresh bonafi de
requirement of the heirs of the landlord for personal cultivation, in light of
the changed circumstances-death of landlord; and whether the holding of
the landlord exceeds one economic holding and whether the landlord earns
his livelihood principally by agriculture or by agricultural labour.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - s. 43A -
Application under - Dispute between the legal heirs of the original
landlord and the tenants of leased lands - Survey No. 291 leased
for sugarcane cultivation, while the other Survey leased for general
cultivation, for 13 years - Expiration of lease period - Issuance of notice
as regards Survey No. 291 by the landlord to terminate the tenancy for
personal cultivation, however possession not vacated - Proceedings for
resumption of lands by the landlord - Original authority directed the
restoration of 22 acres of the suit land to the landlord, based on the
premise that both parties had an equal area for personal cultivation
- Said fi nding upheld by the appellate authority but modifi ed the
restored land to 17 acres 17 guntas - Thereafter, in Revision, the case
was remanded - High Court also ordered remand of the matter for
examination afresh of the bonafi de requirement of the heirs of the
landlord for personal cultivation - Correctness:
Held: Holding of the landlord is 13 acres of jirayat land - Only such
land which a person holds (is in possession) as an owner or tenant, must be
taken into account - Land leased to the tenants cannot be said to be held
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
by the landlord either as an owner, or as a tenant - s. 6 provides that one
unit of economic holding in the context of jirayat land is equivalent to a
holding of 16 acres - Thus, the holding of the landlord cannot be said to be
in excess of one unit of economic holding - Original authority held that the
landlord's principal source of income is from agriculture, which was upheld
by the appellate authority and the revisional authority - As per s. 33(B)(5)
(b), the landlord's entitlement to terminate tenancy and recover possession
of land leased is only to the extent 'of so much thereof as would result in
both the landlord and the tenant holding thereafter in the total an equal
area for personal cultivation' - Original authority and appellate authority
disagreed on the extent of land to be resumed to the landlord - In deciding the
extent of land to be restored, the Original authority was correct in applying
the provision contained in s. 33B(5)(b) but erred in its interpretation and
application - Appellate authority could not have applied s. 31B since the
application of s. 31B stands excluded by s. 43A and the amended notifi cation
- Further, from the evidence on record, the landlord has 13 acres of jirayat
land, which he holds as owner - Litigation having been pending for nearly
50 years - Relegating the parties to the authorities would add acrimony
between the parties, as such the formula prescribed u/s.33B(5)(b) is applied
to allocate the respective shares of the parties - Also, the High Court erred
in remanding the case by considering, events which occurred subsequent
to the date of fi ling of the petition - It was unnecessary for the revisional
authority to remand the case - Impugned order passed by the High Court
set aside - Legal heirs of original landlord entitled to 8.34 Acres in Survey
No.291. [Para 24-31]
Interpretation of statutes - Interpretation of phrase 'economic
holding' in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
- Importing of the defi nition of 'to hold land' from the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966:
Held: Preamble in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
suggests that the object of the enactment was 'to unify and amend the law
relating to land and land revenue in the State of Maharashtra - The Act
was brought in with the object

## Text

_Characters 0–39,945 of 50,466. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39945 for what follows._

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 935 : 2023 INSC 939
935
CASE DETAILS
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS.
v.
MURALIDHAR (D) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11104 of 2014)
OCTOBER 19, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed
in ordering remand of the matter for examination of afresh bonafi de
requirement of the heirs of the landlord for personal cultivation, in light of
the changed circumstances-death of landlord; and whether the holding of
the landlord exceeds one economic holding and whether the landlord earns
his livelihood principally by agriculture or by agricultural labour.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - s. 43A -
Application under - Dispute between the legal heirs of the original
landlord and the tenants of leased lands - Survey No. 291 leased
for sugarcane cultivation, while the other Survey leased for general
cultivation, for 13 years - Expiration of lease period - Issuance of notice
as regards Survey No. 291 by the landlord to terminate the tenancy for
personal cultivation, however possession not vacated - Proceedings for
resumption of lands by the landlord - Original authority directed the
restoration of 22 acres of the suit land to the landlord, based on the
premise that both parties had an equal area for personal cultivation
- Said fi nding upheld by the appellate authority but modifi ed the
restored land to 17 acres 17 guntas - Thereafter, in Revision, the case
was remanded - High Court also ordered remand of the matter for
examination afresh of the bonafi de requirement of the heirs of the
landlord for personal cultivation - Correctness:
Held: Holding of the landlord is 13 acres of jirayat land - Only such
land which a person holds (is in possession) as an owner or tenant, must be
taken into account - Land leased to the tenants cannot be said to be held
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
by the landlord either as an owner, or as a tenant - s. 6 provides that one
unit of economic holding in the context of jirayat land is equivalent to a
holding of 16 acres - Thus, the holding of the landlord cannot be said to be
in excess of one unit of economic holding - Original authority held that the
landlord's principal source of income is from agriculture, which was upheld
by the appellate authority and the revisional authority - As per s. 33(B)(5)
(b), the landlord's entitlement to terminate tenancy and recover possession
of land leased is only to the extent 'of so much thereof as would result in
both the landlord and the tenant holding thereafter in the total an equal
area for personal cultivation' - Original authority and appellate authority
disagreed on the extent of land to be resumed to the landlord - In deciding the
extent of land to be restored, the Original authority was correct in applying
the provision contained in s. 33B(5)(b) but erred in its interpretation and
application - Appellate authority could not have applied s. 31B since the
application of s. 31B stands excluded by s. 43A and the amended notifi cation
- Further, from the evidence on record, the landlord has 13 acres of jirayat
land, which he holds as owner - Litigation having been pending for nearly
50 years - Relegating the parties to the authorities would add acrimony
between the parties, as such the formula prescribed u/s.33B(5)(b) is applied
to allocate the respective shares of the parties - Also, the High Court erred
in remanding the case by considering, events which occurred subsequent
to the date of fi ling of the petition - It was unnecessary for the revisional
authority to remand the case - Impugned order passed by the High Court
set aside - Legal heirs of original landlord entitled to 8.34 Acres in Survey
No.291. [Para 24-31]
Interpretation of statutes - Interpretation of phrase 'economic
holding' in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
- Importing of the defi nition of 'to hold land' from the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966:
Held: Preamble in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
suggests that the object of the enactment was 'to unify and amend the law
relating to land and land revenue in the State of Maharashtra - The Act
was brought in with the object of amending 'the law relating to tenancies
of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard to those
lands' - Under several provisions of the Act, reference is required to be made
937
to the Code - Provisions contained in the Act and the Code operate in an
overlapping sphere and fertilize each other - Words used in the Code and
the expressions appearing under the Act, when read harmoniously, it would
indicate that the expressions in both the enactments are complementary and
supplementary to each other - Thus, the Act and Code are in pari materia
to each other, and the defi nition of 'to hold land' is drifted from the Code
for the purpose of interpreting the phrase, 'economic holding' in the Act -
Thus, when s. 2(6A) of the Act and s. 2(12) of the Code are read together,
the economic holding of a person would be computed by taking account
of the lands possessed (whether actual or not) by such person, whether as
owner or tenant. [Para 22]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Devidas Narayan More v. Chunnilal Bhailal Wani AIR 1973 Bom
195 - approved.
Maruti Namdeo Gade v. Dattatraya Maval (1976) 78 Bom LR 602;
Hariba Keshav Barbole v. Motibhai Deepchand AIR 1975 Bom 137;
Bhavani Housing Cooperative Society v. Bangalore Development Authority,
ILR 2006 KAR 1352; Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC
604 : [2001] 1 SCR 923; Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das (2004) 5 SCC 772
: [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 114 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11104 of
2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2005 of the High Court of
Bombay at Aurangabad in WP Nos. 471 of 1996 and 2193 of 1981.
Appearances:
Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv., M. Y. Deshmukh, Ms. Kanya Jhawar, Ms.
Manjeet Kirpal, Mrs. Adviteeya Sharma, Nandkumar N. Deshmukh,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv. for the Respondents.
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. v. MURALIDHAR
(D) & ORS.
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. The appellants are the legal heirs of original landlord, Keshav
Bhaurao Yeole (hereinafter referred to as "landlord" for ease of reference).
Survey No. 291 (admeasuring 26 acres 13 guntas) and Survey No. 290/1 &
290/2 (admeasuring 8 acres 21 guntas) had been given on lease to Respondent
Nos. 2 & 5 (now deceased) namely Murlidhar Damodar Modhave &
Bhausaheb Damodar Modhave and Respondent No.1 namely Kundalik
Damodar Modhave (now deceased) respectively, (hereinafter referred to
as "tenants") through two separate lease deeds dated 30.08.1962, for a
period of 13 years. The lease in respect of Survey No. 291 was specifi cally
executed for cultivation of sugarcane crop, whereas the lease for Survey
No.290/1 & 290/2 were for cultivation, generally.
2. On the expiration of the tenure of the lease, a notice (dated
05.09.1975) for termination of tenancy (hereinafter referred to as 'notice')
had been issued to the tenants. The landlord sought to recover possession
for the purpose of personal cultivation. It was stated in the notice that the
tenanted land was the principal source of income for the family and that
their livelihood was dependent on the cultivation of such lands. It is critical
to note at the very outset that the notice pertained to land bearing Survey
No.291 only and no separate notice of termination of tenancy was issued
in respect of land bearing Survey No. 290/1 & 290/2.
3. Since the tenant did not voluntarily relinquish his possession in
response to the notice, the landlord initiated proceedings1 for resumption of
tenanted lands before the Court of Tenancy Awal Karkun, Rahuri (hereinafter
referred to as 'original authority') under Section 29 read with Section 43A(1)
(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 19482. (for short
'the Act'). Through these proceedings, the landlord had sought to recover
1
 Tenancy Case No. 2/1977
2
 The Act has since been renamed as the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1948 by Maharashtra Act 24 of 2012
939
possession of lands leased under both lease deeds, that is, Survey No. 291
and Survey No. 290/1 & 290/2.
4. In order to decide the lis, the original authority had framed four issues
for consideration. The issues framed and summary of fi ndings in respect of
each issue are tabulated hereinbelow for ease of reference:
Issues
Findings
1. Whether the applicant is the
landlord of the suit land?
Yes, suit lands were owned by applicant.
2. Whether the opponents are the
tenants of the suit land?
Only Opponents no. 1,2,5 are tenants of
the land in dispute; no evidence led to
prove that there was a partition in the joint
family of the tenants
3. Whether the notices for
termination of tenancy are served
upon the opponents and are valid
one?
Yes,notice for termination of tenancy
had been served on Opponents no.
1,2,3 on 24.10.75, 24.9.75 and 30.9.75
respectively and notice is a valid notice
4. Whether the landlord requires the
suit lands?
Yes, landlord has proved that he requires
land for bonafi de personal cultivation
5. Ultimately, the original authority allowed the application of the
landlord3 and directed that 22 acres of the suit lands4 (33 acres 21 guntas)
was to be restored to him. The direction for restoration of 22 acres of the
suit land was on the premise that the applicant (landlord) was 'entitled for
possession of so much of land as would result in both the landlord and tenants
holding thereafter in the total and equal area for personal cultivation'. The
reasoning of the original authority in this regard is extracted below:
"The lands held by the opponents individually are measuring (23
ac. 29 gts. 9H. 83 R.) The land held by applicant is 13A 11 Gts.
The applicant is entitled for possession of so much of the land as
would result in both the landlord and tenants holding thereafter in
the total and equal area for personal cultivation. The area of the land
in dispute is 33 A 21 gts. I, therefore, order that 22 A 00 gts. Twenty
two acres of the land out of the land in dispute should be restored to
3
Order dated 17.04.1978 in Tenancy Case No.2/77
4
Sum total of land bearing Survey No. 291 and Survey No. 290/1&290/2
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. v. MURALIDHAR
(D) & ORS. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
the landlord i.e., applicant. I further order that the possession of the
land may be given to the applicant, not earlier than sixty days after
the close of the year."
6. Both the landlord and the tenant preferred appeals against the order
of the original authority. The appeals were fi led in the Court of Assistant
Collector, Rahuri Division, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as, 'the
appellate authority'). The landlord preferred an appeal5 on the ground that
the possession had not been granted in respect of the entire suit land. The
tenant, on the other hand, had sought for interference6 on the ground that
notice for termination of tenancy was invalid and that the landlord did not
require the lands for bonafi de personal cultivation as he was already in
possession of a substantial extent of revenue-bearing lands.
7. The appellate authority, vide a common judgment dated 21.11.78,
upheld the fi ndings of the original authority but modifi ed the extent of land,
which was to be restored to the landlord. It held that the landlord was entitled
to possession of 17 acres 17 guntas of the suit land. The appellate authority
notes that the original authority's direction for restoration of 22 acres of suit
land proceeded on a misinterpretation of Section 31B of the Act.
8. Against the decision of the appellate authority, the landlord and
the tenant fi led revision applications before Member of the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Pune (for short, the 'revisional authority').It was
contended on behalf of the tenant7 that the notice was issued only in respect
of Survey No. 291 and that there was no separate notice in respect of Survey
No.290/1&290/2. It was further argued that the original authority ought to
have framed an issue as to whether the subject in dispute was to be governed
by notifi cation dated 14.2.1958 or the notifi cation as amended on 08.10.1969
(for short 'amended notifi cation') - the extent of land which could be ordered
to be resumed was dependent on the relevant notifi cation which applied, and
therefore, in the absence of any fi nding on this question, both the authorities
fell into grave error in their determination of the fi nal outcome. Accordingly,
it was prayed that the case be remanded back to the original authority for
5
TNC A. No. 32/78
6
TNC A. 24/78
7
Revision No.7/79
941
framing of an appropriate issue on the relevant notifi cation applicable.
On behalf of the landlord8, it was urged that there was no justifi cation for
remand since the question sought to be decided was a question of law and
the revisional authority could, by itself, decide this issue.
9. Upon examination of the contentions urged by both the sides, the
revisional authority allowed the application fi led on behalf of the tenant,
dismissed the application of the landlord and accordingly, ordered that the
case be remanded to the original authority 'for framing issues under the
provisions of Section 31A to 31D of the Tenancy Act, 1948 in respect of
Survey No. 291 only'. The original authority was directed to give its fi nding
on the said issue.
10. The order of the revisional authority was based on the following
reasons. The revisional authority found that the notice was issued only in
respect of Survey No. 291 and therefore, the application of the landlord for
restoration of possession of lands bearing Survey No. 290/1&290/2 could
not have been entertained by the original authority. In the absence of a valid
notice, the original authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the landlord's
application for resumption of land. It found that the landlord's holding is
more than one unit of economic holding and therefore, he is not entitled to
application of benefi cial provisions as provided in the amended notifi cation
dated 08/10/969. It was also noticed that the outcome of the dispute was
directly linked to the question of the relevant notifi cation applicable, that
is, whether the original notifi cation or the amended notifi cation governed
the facts in issue, and therefore, a clear fi nding on that question was most
expedient.
11. The landlord challenged the order passed by the revisional authority
in writ proceedings before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay. During
the pendency of writ proceedings, both, the original landlord as well as
original Respondent Nos.2 & 5 namely, Murlidhar Damodar Modhave &
Bhausaheb Damodar Modhave,expired. Their legal heirs were brought on
record through applications for substitution. The High Court set aside all
orders passed by the authorities below and ordered for remand of the case
before the original authority. However, the reasons which persuaded the
8
Revision No.3/79
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. v. MURALIDHAR
(D) & ORS. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
High Court to order remand were completely diff erent from that which
motivated the revisional authority to do. So it was directed that the original
authority shall consider the matter afresh and examine if the heirs of the
landlord had any bonafi de requirement for personal cultivation in light of the
changed circumstances (death of landlord). In ordering so, the High Court
relied on Maruti Namdeo Gade v. Dattatraya Maval9 and Hariba Keshav
Barbole v. Motibhai Deepchand.10 It was held therein that if landlord had
died pending eviction proceedings, the bonafi de requirement of lands for
personal cultivation had to be demonstrated and proved afresh by the heirs
of the landlord.
12. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 29.07.2005,
the landlord fi led a special leave petition before this Court. Leave to appeal
was granted by Order dated 9.12.2014.
13. We have heard Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant-landlord and Mr. Ravinder Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel
for the respondents.
14. The submissions of Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant-landlord can be summarized in the following points:

The High Court fell into error in relying on the decisions in
the case of Maruti Namdeo Gade (supra) and Hariba Keshav
Barbole (supra). The date for determining the bonafi des of the
requirement of lands for personal cultivation ought to have been
determined as on date of fi ling the application and subsequent
events thereon, like death of the landlord, ought not to have any
bearing on the decision of the dispute.

Both the original authority and the appellate authority had
recorded a fi nding that the landlord's holding does not exceed
one economic holding. In that context, the revisional authority
went beyond its jurisdictional boundaries in disturbing the said
fi nding and holding that the landlord's holding exceeds one unit
of economic holding.
9
(1976) 78 Bom LR 602.
10 AIR 1975 Bom 137
943

Even though the land leased in respect of Survey No. 290/1 &
290/2 are not for sugarcane cultivation, while determining the
extent of land to be resumed to the landlord as per Section 33B(5)
(b), the original authority is required to consider the total holding
of both the landlord and the tenant.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has supported the
impugned order and has canvassed the following contentions:

The notice for termination of tenancy dated 05.09.1975 having
been issued only in respect of land bearing Survey No. 291, the
scope of adjudication of this dispute must be limited to such land,
as has been rightly noticed by the revisional authority.

The High Court and the revisional authority were justifi ed in
remanding the case to the original authority since the facts
necessary to decide whether the landlord's holding was in excess
of one unit of economic holding, was not forthcoming from the
evidence on record.

The landlord held several other lands other than lands leased to the
tenant, and was earning income through non-agricultural sources,
which fact can be inquired into only on remand of the case. The
holding of the landlord was clearly in excess of one economic
unit, and therefore, Section 31A-31D has to be applied. Since the
original authority has not framed any issue in this regard, it was
essential that the case be remanded back for fresh determination.
16. Undisputedly, the notice for termination of tenancy has been issued
only in respect of Survey No. 291 and it did not relate to Survey No.290/1
& 290/2. In fact, we have perused the original records and the original
notice dated 05.09.1975 and are satisfi ed that termination notice has been
issued only in respect of Survey No.291 and there is not even a whisper
with regard to Survey No.290/1 & 290/2 in the notice dated 05.09.1975.
This fact had been rightly noticed in the order of the revisional authority.
Therefore, we shall proceed to consider the dispute only in so far as Survey
No. 291 is concerned.
17. Having considered the rival submissions canvassed by both sides
and the material on record, the following issue falls for consideration:
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. v. MURALIDHAR
(D) & ORS. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
"Whether the holding of the landlord exceeds one economic holding
and whether the landlord earns his livelihood principally by agriculture
or by agricultural labour?"
18.To adjudicate the above issues, it becomes necessary to examine
the relevant provisions and notifi cations issued under the provisions of
the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act include Section 2(2D), Section
2(6A), Section 4B, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 29, Section 31,
Section 31A, Section 31B, Section 33B, Section 43A. It would be of benefi t
to consider the notifi cation issued by the State Government in exercise of
powers under Section 43A (3) on 14.02.1958 and the amendment brought
out to this notifi cation on 08.10.1969 which has been relied upon by the
appellant and which has a direct bearing on the issue. Hence, the relevant
provisions as well as the notifi cation are extracted hereinbelow:
AMENDED NOTIFICATION DATED 08/10/1969
"Lease of land granted for cultivation of sugarcane or the growing
of fruits or fl owers or for the breeding of livestock referred to in Sec.
43-A (1)(b) to which the provisions of Sec. 43A (1) apply.
Sec. 43A (3) of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948.- No. T N C.5157/173483- M.
in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (30 of sec. 43-A, of
the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bom. LXVII
of 1948), the Government of Bombay hereby directs that the leases
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the said sec. 43A and
to which the provisions of sub-section (1) of the said sec. 43A and to
which the provisions of sub-section (1) of said sec. 43-A apply shall
be subject to the following conditions namely:-
Conditions as to the duration and termination of lease:-
"1. No such lease of land shall be liable to be terminated on the ground
that the period fi xed by agreement or usage for its duration has expired.
2. If a lessor bona fi de requires an land so leased by him for cultivating
it personally or for any non-agricultural use, such lease may, subject
to the conditions mentioned in Secs. 31-A, 31-B, 31-C and 31-D be
terminated by the lessor by giving the lessee [a month's] notice in
writing stating therein the reasons for the termination of the lease:
945
[Provided that, if the holding of lessor does not exceed one
economic holding and such lessor earns his livelihood principally
by agriculture or by agricultural labour, the conditions mentioned
in sec. 31-A and 31-B shall not apply but the lessor's right to resume
land shall be subject to the conditions mentioned in clauses (b) and
(c) of sub-section (5) of sec. 33-B, with this modifi cation that clause
(c) of the said sub-section (5) shall be read as if for the words "the
commencement date" appearing therein the words, letters, fi gures
and brackets "the date Government Notifi cation, Revenue and
Forests Department, No. TNC. 6769/9667-M, Spl. Dated the 8th
October, 1969" were substituted.]
1. Submitted for the words "one year" by G.N. No. TNC 6796/9667
(Spl.) of 8.10.69.
2. Added by G.N. of 1.10.1969."
Relevant provisions of Tenancy Act, 1948
"Section 2(2D) - "ceiling area" means in relation to land held by a
person whether as an owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly
as tenant the area of land fi xed as ceiling area under section 5 or 7;
Section 2(6A) - "economic holding" means in relation to land held by a
person, whether as an owner or tenant, or partly as owner and partly as
tenant, the area of land fi xed as an economic holding in section 6 or 7;
Section 5 - Ceiling area
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the ceiling area of lands shall be,--
(a) 48 acres of jirayat land, or
(b) 24 acres of seasonally irrigated land or paddy or rice land, or
(c) 12 acres of perennially irrigated land.
(1) Where the land held by a person consists of two or more kinds of
land specifi ed in sub-section (1), the ceiling area of such holding shall
be determined on the basis of one acre of perennially irrigated land
being equal to two acres of seasonally irrigated land or paddy or rice
land, or four acres of jirayat land.
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. v. MURALIDHAR
(D) & ORS. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Explanation.-- In calculating the ceiling area, warkas land shall be
excluded.
Section 6 - Economic holding
(1) For the purposes of this Act, an economic holding shall be,--
(a) 16 acres of jirayat land, or
(b) 8 acres of seasonally irrigated land, or paddy or rice land, or
(c) 4 acres of perennially irrigated land.
(1) Where the land held by a person consists of two or more kinds
of land specifi ed in sub-section (1), an economic holding shall be
determined on the basis applicable to the ceiling area under sub-section
(2) of section 5.
Explanation.-- In calculating an economic holding, warkas land shall
be excluded.
Section 31 - Landlord's right to terminate tenancy for personal
cultivation and non- agricultural purpose
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 and 30 but
subject to sections 31A to 31D (both inclusive), a landlord (not being
a landlord within the meaning of Chapter III-AA) may, after giving
notice and making an application for possession as provided in subsection (2), terminate the tenancy of any land (except a permanent
tenancy), if the landlord bona-fi de requires the land for any of the
following purposes :--
(a) for cultivating personally, or
(b) for any non-agricultural purpose.
(1) The notice required to be given under sub-section (1) shall be in
writing, shall state the purpose for which the landlord requires the
land and shall be served on the tenant on or before the 31st day of
December 1956. A copy of such notice shall, at the same time, be
sent to the Mamlatdar. An application for possession under section
29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of
March 1957.
947
(2) Where a landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to
mental or physical disability then such notice may be given and an
application for possession under section 29 may be made,--
(i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains
majority;
(ii) by the succesor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date
on which her interest in the land ceases to exist;
(iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical
disability ceases to exist; and
Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a joint
family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least one
member of the joint family is outside the categories mentioned in the
sub-section unless before the 31st day of March 1958 the share of such
person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds and
the Mamlatdar on inquiry, is satisfi ed that the share of such person in the
land is separated having regard to the area, assessment, classifi cation
and value of the land, in the same proportion as the share of that person
in the entire joint family property, and not in a large proportion.
Section 31A - Conditions of termination of tenancy
The right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy for cultivating the
land personally under section 31 shall be subject to the following
conditions :--
(a) If the landlord at the date on which the notice is given and on
the date on which it expires has no other land of his own or has not
been cultivating personally any other land, he shall be entitled to take
possession of the land leased to the extent of a ceiling area.
(b) If the land cultivated by him personally is less than a ceiling area,
the landlord shall be entitled to take possession of so much area of the
land leased as will be suffi cient to make up the area in his possession
to the extent of a ceiling area.
(c) The income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to
take possession is the principal source of income for his maintenance.
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. v. MURALIDHAR
(D) & ORS. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
(d) The land leased stands in the record of rights or in any public record
or similar revenue record on the 1st day of January 1952 and thereafter
during the period between the said date and the appointed day in the
name of the landlord himself, or of any of his ancestors 2[but not of
any person from whom title is derived, whether by assignment or Court
sale or otherwise], or if the landlord is a member of a joint family, in
the name of a member of such family.
(e) If more tenancies than one are held under the same landlord, then the
landlord shall be competent to terminate only the tenancy or tenancies
which are the shortest in point of duration.
Section 31B - No termination of tenancy in contravention of Bom.
LXII of 1947 or if tenant is member of co-orperative farming
society
In no case a tenancy shall be terminated under section 31--
(1) in such manner as will result in leaving with a tenant, after
termination, less than half the area of the land leased to him, or
(2) in such a manner as will result in a contravention of the provisions
of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947, or in making any part of the land leased a fragment
within the meaning of that Act, or co-operative farming society.
(3) if the tenant has become a member of a co-operative farming society
and so long as he continues to be such member.
Section 31C - Landlord not entitled to terminate tenancy for
personal cultivation of land left with tenant
The tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination of
the tenancy under section 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable
to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fi de requires
that land for personal cultivation.
Section 31D - Apportionment of rent after termination of tenancy
for land left with tenant
If, in consequence of the termination of the tenancy under section
31, any part of the land leased is left with the tenant, the rent shall be
949
apportioned in the prescribed manner in proportion to the area of the
land left with the tenant.
Section 33B - Special rights of certifi cated landlord to terminate
tenancy for personal cultivation
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) xxx
(4) xxx
(5) The right of a certifi cated landlord to terminate a tenancy under this
section shall be subject to the following conditions, that is to say,--
(a) If any land is left over from a tenancy in respect of which other land
has already been resumed by the landlord or his predecessor-in-title,
on the ground that other land was required for cultivating it personally
under section 31 (or under any earlier law relating to tenancies then
in force), the tenancy in respect of any land so left over shall not be
liable to be terminated under sub-section (1).
(b) The landlord shall be entitled to terminate a tenancy and take
possession of the land leased but to the extent only of so much thereof
as would result in both the landlord and the tenant holding thereafter
in the total an equal area for personal cultivation--the area resumed
or the area left with the tenant being a fragment, notwithstanding, and
notwithstanding anything contained in section 31 of the * Bombay
Preventation of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1947.
(c) The land leased stands in the Record of Rights (or in any public
record or similar revenue record) on the 1st day of January 1952 and
thereafter until the commencement date in the name of the landlord
himself, of any of his ancestors (but not of any person from whom title
is derived by assignment or Court sale or otherwise), or if the landlord
is a member of a joint family, in the name of a member of such family.
(6) xxx
(7) xxx
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. v. MURALIDHAR
(D) & ORS. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Section 43A - Some of the provisions not to apply to leases of
land obtained by industrial or commercial undertakings, certain
co-operative societies or for cultivations of sugar- cane or fruits
or fl owers
(1) The provisions of sections 4B, 8, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 10A, 14, 16,
17, 17A, 17B, 18, 27, 31 to 31D (both inclusive), 32 to 32R, (both
inclusive) [33A, 33B, 33C] 43, 63, 63A, 64 and 65, shall not apply to--
(a) land leased to or held by any industrial or commercial undertaking
(other than a Co-operative Society) which in the opinion of the
State Government bona fi de carried on any industrial or commercial
operations and which is approved by the State Government;
(b) leases of land granted to any bodies or persons other than those
mentioned in clause (a) for the cultivation of sugarcane or the growing
of fruits or fl owers or for the breeding of livestock;
(c) to lands held or leased by such co-operative societies as are
approved in the prescribed manner by the State Government which
have for their objects the improvement of the economic and social
conditions of peasants or ensuring the full and effi cient use of land
for agriculture and allied pursuits.
(2) xxx
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), it
shall be lawful for the State Government to direct, by notifi cation in the
Offi cial Gazette that the leases or lands, as the case may be, to which
the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) apply, shall be subject to
such conditions as may be specifi ed in the notifi cation, in respect of--
(a) the duration of the lease;
(b) the improvements to be made on the land and the formation of cooperative farming societies for that purpose and fi nancial assistance
to such societies;
(c) the payment of land revenue, irrigation cess, local-fund cess and any
other charges payable to the State Government or any local authority; or
951
(d) any other matter referred to in sections mentioned in sub-section
(1)."
19. Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 43A would indicate that
lease of land granted for the cultivation of sugarcane would result in the
exemption of the provisions indicated in sub-Section (1) of Section 43A.
In other words, the provisions indicated in sub-Section (1) of 43A is not
attracted in respect of the leases of land granted for the cultivation of
sugarcane or the leases of land as specifi ed in Chapter IIIA. The legislature
in its wisdom, has thought it fi t to make an exception to the exemption clause
as incorporated in sub-Section (3) of Section 43A(3). It enables the State
Government to issue a notifi cation providing for conditions, subject to which,
the leases referred to in Chapter IIIA would be governed by. Therefore, it is
crucial for us to examine the notifi cation dated 14.02.1958 as amended on
08.10.1969, which came to be issued by the State Government under the
enabling source of power provided in Section 43A(3). In this regard, we
must examine the applicability of the proviso to condition No.2 stipulated
thereunder which came to be introduced through the amendment in the
year 1969.
20. According to the aforesaid proviso, if the holding of the landlord
does not exceed one economic holding and the landlord's principal source of
income is dependent on agriculture or agricultural labor, then, it follows, as
per the amended notifi cation, that the conditions mentioned in Section 31A&
31Bshall not govern the present dispute and the lessor's right to resume
land shall be subject to conditions set out in Section 33B(5)(b) and (c). If
the holding of the landlord exceeds one economic holding or his principal
source of income is not dependent on agriculture, then, Section 31A-31D
will govern the present dispute.
21. The fact fi nding authorities have concluded that the landlord holds
13 acres of jirayat land, apart from the land leased out to the tenant under
the two lease deeds. The defi nition of 'economic holding' in Section 2(6A)
requires us to account for the total land held by a person, whether as an owner
or tenant. There is no defi nition in the Act for the expression 'land held'.
However, we fi nd the expression 'to hold land' defi ned in the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short 'the Code'). It reads as under:
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. v. MURALIDHAR
(D) & ORS. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
"to hold land" or "to be a land-holder or holder of land" means to be
lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or
not."
22. In Bhavani Housing Cooperative Society v. Bangalore
Development Authority, ILR 2006 KAR 1352, the Karnataka High Court
while considering the question as to whether the defi nition of a particular
phrase can be imported into a particular enactment from a diff erent
enactment, has held that if the Acts are pari materia to each other, then the
defi nition of one Act can be imported to the other Act. The preamble in the
Code suggests that the object of the enactment was 'to unify and amend
the law relating to land and land revenue in the State of Maharashtra.'
The Act, on the other hand, was brought in with the object of amending
'the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to make certain
other provisions in regard to those lands'. Under several provisions of
the Act, reference is required to be made to the Code. In that sense, the
provisions contained in the Act and the Code operate in an overlapping
sphere and fertilize each other. The words used in the Code and the
expressions appearing under the Act, when read harmoniously, it would
indicate that the expressions in both the enactments are complementary
and supplementory to each other. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to
say that the Act and Code are in pari materia to each other, and therefore,
we proceed to import the defi nition of 'to hold land' from the Code and
import it for the purpose of interpreting the phrase, 'economic holding'
in the Act.
22A. When Section 2(6A) of the Act and Section 2 (12) of the Code
are read together, the economic holding of a person would be computed
by taking account of the lands possessed (whether actual or not) by such
person, whether as owner or tenant. In the facts of this case, the landlord
has claimed that, as an owner, he held 13 acres of jirayat land.
23. The tenant has not led any evidence to show that the landlord
holds any land as a tenant. Further, no evidence has been led to contradict
the fact that the landlord holds land as an owner, in excess of 13 acres
of jirayat land. Therefore, we ought to proceed on the premise that the
holding of the landlord is 13 acres of jirayat land. The revisional authority
953
has misinterpreted the word 'holding'. In determining the holding of the
landlord, it has taken into account the land leased to the tenant and has, on
that basis, concluded that the holding of the landlord is in excess of one unit
of economic holding. As we have explained above, only such land which
a person holds (is in possession) as an owner or tenant, must be taken into
account. The land leased to the tenants cannot be said to be held by the
landlord either as an owner, or as a tenant.
24. Section 6 of the Act provides that one unit of economic holding in
the context of jirayat land is equivalent to a holding of 16 acres. It is thus
clear that the holding of the landlord cannot be said to be in excess of one
unit of economic holding. The original authority has recorded a fi nding that
the landlord's principal source of income is from agriculture. This fi nding has
not been disturbed or challenged by the appellate authority or the revisional
authority. Since the twin conditions provided in the proviso as found in the
amended notifi cation stand satisfi ed, the outcome of the dispute will have
to be decided in accordance with Section 33(B)(5)(b) and not according to
Section 31A and 31B.
25. According to Section 33(B)(5)(b), the landlord's entitlement to
terminate tenancy and recover possession of land leased is only to the extent
'of so much thereof as would result in both the landlord and the tenant
holding thereafter in the total an equal area for personal cultivation'. The
original authority and appellate authority have disagreed on the extent
of land to be resumed to the landlord. In deciding the extent of land to
be restored, the original authority has applied the provision contained
in Section 33(B)(5)(b), whereas the appellate authority has applied the
provision contained in Section 31B.