# DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV t v. NIVRUTII GANGARAM PAWAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 1 S.C.R. 864
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-01-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2564 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee, Lokeshwar Singh Panta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dinkar-maruti-jadhav-t-v-nivrutii-gangaram-pawar-dead-by-lrs-and-ors-24189
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

c
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948- ss.
33-8 and 88-C -
Certificate granting exemption from
applicability of provisions of the Act - On the basis of income
of landlord and extent of land leased - Initiation of proceedings
by the certified lan.dlord for termination of tenancy on the
D ground of bonafide requirement and personal cultivation -
Death of the landlord during pendency of the proceedings -
Effect of - On termination of tenancy- Held: With the death of
the original landlord, apart from tile question of bonafide need
and personal cultivation, question of extent of holding leased
E
and the income of the legal heirs also becomes relevant -
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy
A certificate was issued to the original owner under
s. 88-C of Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948. He initiated proceedings uls 33 B. Thereafter he died.
F In the litigation question for consideration was effect of
k
death of the original owner on the certificate issued u/s
~
88 C. When the matter came in appeal to this court,
Division Bench doubted correctness of some of the
observations made in *Moreshwar's case wherein it was
held that once certificate u/s 88 C was issued and
G proceedings uls 33 B were initiated, the relief u/s 88 C gets
exhausted and hence referred the matter to larger Bench.
, ..,
Thus, the question to be clarified was that when death of
the original owner has taken place whether the income
or the extent of land of the legal heirs have to be reckoned.
H
864
DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV v. NIVRUTII GANGARAM
865
PAWAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
~i
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
A
HELD: Sections 33-8 and 88-C of Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 operate in different fields.
Section 33-8 refers to bona fide requirement and personal
cultivation. Income and/or economic holding concept is
B
not there. Bona fide requirement and personal cultivation
concepts are applicable only under Section 88-C because
it refers to Section 33-8. There are two separate stages.
The tenant can, in a given case, oppose the application in
terms of Section 33-8 on the ground that there is no bona
fide requirement and/or personal cultivation. It deals with c
enforcement of the certificate. With the death of the original
landlord, the question of economic holding and the
income also becomes relevant. [Para 3] [866-0, E, F]
Moreshwar Balkrishna Pandare and Ors. v. Vitha/ Vyanku
Chavan and Ors. 2001 (5) SCC 551 - clarified.
D
•
~

## Text

[2008) 1 S.C.R. 864
A
DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV
t--
v.
NIVRUTII GANGARAM PAWAR (DEAD)
BY LRS. AND ORS.
(C.A. No. 2564 of 2005)
B
JANUARY 18, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
c
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948- ss.
33-8 and 88-C -
Certificate granting exemption from
applicability of provisions of the Act - On the basis of income
of landlord and extent of land leased - Initiation of proceedings
by the certified lan.dlord for termination of tenancy on the
D ground of bonafide requirement and personal cultivation -
Death of the landlord during pendency of the proceedings -
Effect of - On termination of tenancy- Held: With the death of
the original landlord, apart from tile question of bonafide need
and personal cultivation, question of extent of holding leased
E
and the income of the legal heirs also becomes relevant -
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy
A certificate was issued to the original owner under
s. 88-C of Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948. He initiated proceedings uls 33 B. Thereafter he died.
F In the litigation question for consideration was effect of
k
death of the original owner on the certificate issued u/s
~
88 C. When the matter came in appeal to this court,
Division Bench doubted correctness of some of the
observations made in *Moreshwar's case wherein it was
held that once certificate u/s 88 C was issued and
G proceedings uls 33 B were initiated, the relief u/s 88 C gets
exhausted and hence referred the matter to larger Bench.
, ..,
Thus, the question to be clarified was that when death of
the original owner has taken place whether the income
or the extent of land of the legal heirs have to be reckoned.
H
864
DINKAR MARUTI JADHAV v. NIVRUTII GANGARAM
865
PAWAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
~i
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
A
HELD: Sections 33-8 and 88-C of Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 operate in different fields.
Section 33-8 refers to bona fide requirement and personal
cultivation. Income and/or economic holding concept is
B
not there. Bona fide requirement and personal cultivation
concepts are applicable only under Section 88-C because
it refers to Section 33-8. There are two separate stages.
The tenant can, in a given case, oppose the application in
terms of Section 33-8 on the ground that there is no bona
fide requirement and/or personal cultivation. It deals with c
enforcement of the certificate. With the death of the original
landlord, the question of economic holding and the
income also becomes relevant. [Para 3] [866-0, E, F]
Moreshwar Balkrishna Pandare and Ors. v. Vitha/ Vyanku
Chavan and Ors. 2001 (5) SCC 551 - clarified.
D
•
~
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2564
of 2005.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2003 of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition.No. 1308 E
of 1990.
Varun Thakur and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.
D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents.
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
...
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. A two judge Bench doubted
the correctness of some of the observations made in Moreshwar
Balkrishna Pandare & Ors. v. Vithal Vyanku Chavan and Ors.
[2001 (5) sec 551] and therefore referred the matter to a larger
Bench and that is how the matter was posted before us. The G
...
1
essence of the judgment in Moreshwar's case (supra) was that
once an action in Section 33-B is taken, Section 88C of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short the
'Act') has no relevance.
2. In the instant case, the original owner had expired.
H
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
A Undoubtedly, the certificate had been issued to him under
+"'-
Section 88-C with reference to the qualification possessed by
the landlord as on 151 April, 1957. The question which fell for
consideration before the High Court was the effect of the death
of the original landlord who had either applied for issuance of
B certificate under Section 88-C, which is pending, or was the
certificate already granted in his favour. In Paragraph 27 of
Moreshwar's case (supra) it is held that once certificate under
Section 88-C is issued and the landlord has issued notice in
exercise of the rights under Section 33-B of the Act and proceeds
c to file an application for possession under Section 33-B read
with Section 29 of the Act, the relief under Section 88-C gets
exhausted. Moreshwar's case (supra) related to rights under
Section 880 of the Act. The question which may arise is that
when death has taken place whether the income or the extent of
D
land of the legal heirs have to be reckoned.
3. Sections 33-B and 88-C operate in different fields. Bona
fide requirement and personal cultivation concepts are
applicable only under Section 88-C because it refers to Section
33-B. Section 33-B refers to bona fide requirement and personal
E cultivation. Section 88D(iv) comes into operation when the
annual income exceeds the limit fixed and/or economic holdings
exceeded. There are two separate stages. The tenant can, in a
given case, oppose the application in terms of Section 33-B on
the ground that there is no bona fide requirement and/or
personal cultivation. It deals with enforcement of the certificate.
F With the death of the original landlord, the question of economic
...
holding and the income also becomes relevant. In Section 33-
,,.
B income and/or economic holding concept is not there.
4. The decision in Moreshwar's case (supra) is accordingly
G clarified. We remit the matter to the High Court to hear the writ
petitions afresh in the light of the position of law delineated
above.
r ....
5. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without
any order as to costs.
H K.K.T.
Appeal partly allowed.