GANPATI APPA KASAR Vs. MARUTI BALA NAGAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Full Bench relates to the interpretation of Section 25 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In order to decide this question, it is necessary to refer to two other Sections of the Act as they stood before the Act was amended in 1956. Section 14 (1) provided that notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a Court of law, the tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall not be terminated except on the grounds specified in this sub-section. One of the grounds specified in this sub-section was that the tenant had failed to pay in any year the rent of the land for that year, within the period prescribed in the section. The proviso to sub-section (1) stated:

(2.) NOTHING in this section shall apply to any tenant whose tenancy is terminated for non payment of rent if he has failed for any three years to pay rent within the period specified in section 14. " this section provided for relief against forfeiture of a tenancy for non-payment of rent. Under Sub-section (2) this relief could not be claimed by a tenant, if he had not paid rent for three years, within the prescribed period. The other section to be considered is section 29. Sub-section (2) of this section states that no landlord shall obtain possession of any land held by a tenant except under an order of the mamlatdar and that for obtaining such order e 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. (2) In 1956 the Act was extensively amended. A new section 14 was substituted for old section 14. But there was no change so far as the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy on the ground of non-payment of rent is concerned. Under the new section 14 also, the landlord can, terminate the tenancy by giving three months' notice, in case his tenant has not paid the rent within the prescribed period. Section 25 was also amended and the period, which the Mamlatdar is required to give to a tenant under sub-section (1), in order to enable him to pay the rent in arrears and the costs of the proceedings, was increased from 15 days to three months. In sub-section (2) of Section 25 for the words "within the period specified in Section 14" the words "and the landlord has given initmation to the tenant to that effect within a period of three months on each default" were substituted. These amendments came into force on 1st August 1956.

(3.) THE scheme of these three sections is clear. Section 14 gives a right to the landlord to terminate the tenancy, if his tenant has not paid the rent within the period prescribed. A default in the payment of rent does not however, automatically result in the termination of the tenancy. Non-payment of rent only gives a right to the landlord to terminate the tenancy a right which he may or may not exercise. It does not give him a right to obtain possession of the land. The tenancy does not, however, terminate, unless a notice of three months is given by the landlord and it is on the expiration of the period of the notice that the tenancy is terminated and the landlord gets a right to obtain possession of the land. A landlord cannot, however, take possession of the land immediately after the tenancy comes to an end. In order to get possession, he has to make an application to the Mamlatdar. When the application is made to the Mamlatdar, the tenant can claim relief against forfeiture under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the act. If he is granted relief, the tenancy will continue and the tenant will continue to hold the land, as if the tenancy had not terminated. Before the Act was amended in 1956, this relief could be refused to a tenant, if he had committed a default in the payment of rent for three years. After the amendment this circumstance alone would not debar a tenant from being relieved against forfeiture. He can be refused relief, if it is also shown that he had been informed about each default within three months of its occurrence. Looking at the matter from another point of view, the amendment imposes a new bar in the way of the landlord's fetting possession of his land on the ground of non-payment of rent. He has to prove not only that there were three defaults, but also that he had brought each default to the notice of the tenant within three months after it had been committed.