JOSEPHINE MATHEW CONCESSIO Vs. SOWR LANGDYA KINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the owners of five lands, which are held by opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, as a tenant. The petitioners made an application to the Mamlatdar for obtaining possession of the lands on the ground that the opponent had not paid rent for four years 1956 -57 to 1959 -60. The Mamlatdar appears to have found that the opponent had not paid the rent due from him. He, however, did not accept the petitioner's evidence that intimations required by Sub -section (2) of Section 25 had been given. He, therefore, held that the petitioners were not entitled to possession of the lands and accordingly dismissed their application. The petitioners appealed to the Deputy Collector, but the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners applied in revision to the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal took the view that under Sub -section (2) of Section 25 the intimation, must not only be in regard to the default in the payment of rent, but also that if the rent was not paid the tenancy would be terminated. It was urged before the Tribunal that such intimations need not refer to the termination of the tenancy and that demand of rent only is sufficient. The Revenue Tribunal did not accept this contention and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not informed the opponent that if he did not pay the rent which was due his tenancy would be terminated. Thereafter the petitioners filed the present special civil application.

(2.) THE first question, which arises for determination in this application, is whether the intimation, which a landlord has to give to his tenant under Sub -section (2) of Section 25 of the Tenancy Act, in order that the provisions of Sub -section (1) of this section may not be attracted, should refer only to the default in the payment of rent or whether it should also contain an expression of the intention or decision of the landlord to terminate the tenancy.

(3.) THE view taken by the Revenue Tribunal in this case is based on its earlier decision in Revision Applications Nos. 675, 676 and 677 of 1962. We have seen the judgment of the Revenue Tribunal in those applications. That main reason given by the Tribunal in support of its view is that 'having regard to the history of the introduction of the principle of relief against termination of tenancy for non -payment of rent in Section 25 of the Tenancy Act' it appeared that the intimation to be given must relate not only to the default in the payment of rent but also to the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy in case the default was not made good. 'The words 'and the landlord has given intimation to the tenant to that effect within a period of three months of each default' were added in Sub -section (2) of Section 25 in 1955. This provision appears to have been made so that a tenant should not be deprived of relief against forfeiture unless after his attention has been drawn to each of the first two defaults, he again commits another default. The history of legislation does not, therefore, warrant the inference, which has been drawn by the Revenue Tribunal. In any case, the history of legislation cannot be relied upon to give a meaning to the words, which they do not properly bear. To give effect to the view taken by the Revenue Tribunal, it will also be necessary to add in Sub -section (2) words which are not there.