BABU PARASU KAIKADI Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "However, considering the fact that the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke (supra) has held that surrender of tenancy which does not comply with the requirement of the provisions of the Act is non est and considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwant Pundlik, etc., where on the strength of a similar language of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, a Bench of three Judges had negatived a similar contention in the matter of interpretation of Section 36 that such injunction should be restricted to only those cases of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation, this would be a fit and proper case where Special Leave should be granted to the petitioners."

(2.) However, High Court granted a certificate holding that it was a fit case for appeal to Supreme Court. It is in this manner, thematter has come up before us.

(3.) It is not disputed that thepredecessors of theappellant were tenant on the relevant date. It is also not disputed that the respondent herein is the landlord of theland in question. It is further not disputed that theappellant herein voluntarily surrendered the land to the landlord. It also stands admitted that the aforesaid surrender was not in terms of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act. The question which, therefore, arises for our consideration is whether thevoluntary surrender which is not in terms of Sections 15 and 24 is a valid one.