SITARAM RAJARAM DHINGE Vs. SATISH SHANTARAM UNDIRWADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this petition under art. 227 of the Constitution is whether in a suit filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of land to which the provisions of sections 43A and 43B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are applicable, the civil Court is competent to make a reference to the Mamlatdar under section 85A of the Act to determine the reasonable rent of the land retrospectively for the years for which the rent is claimed by the landlord and the Mamlatdar is competent to determine the reasonable rent accordingly.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant and the respondents are the landlords of Survey No. 2/1 admeasuring 11 acres assessed at Rs. 18.59 of village Undirwadi, Taluka Yeola in Nasik district. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 56 of 1962 and 84 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yeola, claiming arrears of rent for the years 1955-56 to 1961-62 and 1963-64. They claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 500 per annum which was the agreed rent. By his written statement in both the suits, the petitioner raised the contention that the agreed rent was excessive and that he was not liable to pay rent more than the reasonable rent and that the issue of determination of the reasonable rent of the suit land for these years be referred to the Tahsildar under section 85A of the Act. There is no dispute between the parties that the suit land is a sugarcane land to which the provisions of section 43A are applicable. Two separate references were made to the Tahsildar in the two suits and both the references were decided by the Talisildar by a common order holding that the reasonable rent of the suit land for the years in question is Rs. 1,300 per annum. This order of the Tahsildar was confirmed in appeal and in revision filed before the Revenue Tribunal. The petitioner has filed this Special Civil Application under art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Rege, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not challenge the concurrent finding of fact of the three authorities below that the reasonable rent of the suit land for the years in question is Rs. 1,300 per annum. However, he contends that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to fix reasonable rent under section 43B retrospectively. He submits that section 43B which provides for determination of reasonable rent of a sugarcane land does not confer jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar to fix the rent for past years and that such a determination must necessarily be prospective from the date of application for fixation of rent before the Mamlatdar. According to him, so long as the tenant does not dispute the reasonableness of the agreed rent he is bound to pay rent at the agreed rate, nor can the landlord claim higher rent till such a dispute is raised by either the tenant or the landlord. His submission is that the orders passed by the three authorities below fixing the rent retrospectively are without jurisdiction.