SHANKARRAO MADHAVRAO Vs. K C SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a writ of certiorari or an order or a direction quashing the order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal which refused to entertain an application for revision of an order passed by the Collector on appeal from the determination of reasonable rent by the Mamlatdar.

(2.) THE question which falls for determination is the interpretation of section 12, Subsection (5) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands. Act, 67 of 1948. That Sub-section provides: "every order passed by the Mamlatdar under this section if not appealed against, and every order passed by the Collector in appeal shall hold good for a period of five years and shall not be called in question during that period: provided that the Mamlatdar or the Collector, as the case may be, may, during the said period of five years-- (i) reduce the rent if on an application made to him by a tenant the Mamlatdar or the Collector, as the case may be, is satisfied that (a) on account of deterioration of the land by floods or other cause beyond the control of the tenant the land has been wholly or partially rendered unfit for the purposes of cultivation, or (b) the tenant has incurred any expenditure on account of improvements made on the land, or (ii) enhance the rent, if on an application made to him by a landlord the Mamlatdar or the Collector, as the case may be, is satisfied that on account of any improvement made in the land by or at the expense of the landlord the produce of the land is increased. "

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of opponent 4 that even though, an order passed by the Collector, on appeal from an order of the Mamlatdar determining the reasonable rent would have been revisable by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal under Section 76, provided the case was shown to fall within any of the Clause (a), (b) and (c) of that section, Section 12, Sub-section (5), has the effect of preventing. an application for revision to the Revenue Tribunal in cases in which that rent is determined by the Mamlatdar and the Collector has disposed of an appeal from the Mamlatdar's order. Now, it has to be noticed that neither Section 12 Sub-section (5) nor Section 76 contains a non-obstante clause like "notwithstanding anything contained in section. . " if we were to give the interpretation which is sought to be put upon the words in Section 12, it is obvious that there would arise a conflict between Section 12, Sub-section (5), and Section 76; and it is a well established principle of interpretation that ag far as possible the various provisions of a. statute must be so read as not to bring them in conflict with each other. That does not mean that reconciliation must be effected. But the various provisions must be so read, if at all it is possible to do so, that they do not conflict with each other. That is especially so when the Legislature itself thought that there was no conflict as it has refrained from using in either section words like "notwithstanding anything contained in. . . . . " which the Revenue Tribunal has pointed out in a later decision have been used 28 times in the Act.