BHASKARRAO CHIMAJI GARUD Vs. BHIKA BHAU HON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the tenants of two lands, survey Nos. 9/2 and 10/3, which 'originally belonged to the joint family consisting of opponent No. 1 and his four sons opponents Nos. 2 to 5. In 1953 there was a partition in the opponents' family and the above two lands were allotted to the shares of opponents Nos. 2 to 5. Opponents Nos. 4 and 5 are minors and opponent No. 1 is their guardian. Opponent No. 1 had leased the above two lands to the father of the petitioners for a period of thirty years on March 27, 1942, for the purpose of growing sugarcane. The agreed rent was Rs. 440 per year. After the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act came into force, the petitioners became protected tenants under the provisions of this Act, Section 4B of this Act, as amended with effect from August 1, 1956, states that no tenancy of any land shall be terminated merely on the ground that the period fixed by agreement or usage for its duration has expired. Sub -section (1) of Section 14 provides that notwithstanding any law, agreement or usage or a decree or order of the Court, the tenancy of a land shall not be terminated except on the grounds specified in this sub -section. Section 30, which is the principal section on which the petitioners have relied in this petition, is in the following terms:

(2.) ON March 27, 1958, the opponents gave notices to the petitioners terminating their tenancy. The notices asked the petitioners to hand over possession of the lands on March 26, 1959. After the expiry of the period of these notices, opponents Nos. 2 to 5 made an application to the Mamlatdar for obtaining possession of the lands, on the ground that they wanted them for personal cultivation. The application on behalf of opponents Nos. 3 and 4, who are minors, was made by opponent No. 1. The Tenancy Aval Karkun, who heard the matter, found on all the points in favour of the opponents. He, therefore, directed that possession of half of the lands should be given to the opponents. The petitioners appealed against this order to the Deputy Collector, but their appeal was dismissed. They then applied in revision to the Revenue Tribunal, but their revision application was rejected. Thereafter the petitioners filed the present special civil application, in which they challenge the order for possession made against them.

(3.) IT is plain on a reading of Section 30 that the rights and privileges of any tenant arising out of contract can be abridged and limited in the manner provided in the Act. Provisions in the Act for abridging and limiting a tenant's rights and privileges need not necessarily commence with the words, such as 'notwithstanding anything contained in section 30'. The contention of Mr. Gupte that since the above phrase is not found in Sub -section (3) of Section 43A, the sub -section does not authorise abridgement of rights of a tenant under a lease, the duration of which has not expired, is, therefore, not tenable.