DUNDYAPPA SIVAPPA PATIL Vs. SURENDRA BHIMA RAJMANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question relating to the interpretation of Sub -section (2) of Section 88D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been raised in this petition. The proceedings contemplated under Sub -section (2) of Section 88D arise after a certificate which is issued under Section 88C of the Tenancy Act is revoked. As is well -known, a certificate under Section 88C is issued to a landlord whose holding does not exceed economic holding and whose total annual income including the rent of such land does not exceed Rs. 1,500. If, however, the annual income of the person exceeds Rs. 1,500 or the total holding of such person exceeds the economic holding, the State Government is empowered to revoke the certificate which has been granted under Section 88C. The order revoking the certificate is, however, required to specify the date with effect from which the revocation is to take effect and also it has to be published in a manner which is said to be publication in the official gazette.

(2.) IN the present case respondent No. 1, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the respondent', had obtained a certificate under Section 88C of the Tenancy Act and thereafter made an application under Section 33B of the Tenancy Act for possession of the land mentioned in the certificate. During the pendency of those proceedings the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 88D, was satisfied that the income of the respondent had exceeded Rs. 1,500 and accordingly revoked the certificate issued under Section 88C. This order was published in the gazette of June 21, 1962. The respondent issued a notice dated June 8, 1963 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and ten days thereafter, i.e. on June 19, 1963, made an application under Section 88D(2) of the Tenancy Act for possession of the land.

(3.) THOUGH several defences had been raised in the Courts below for resisting the application filed by the respondent, in the petition before me the only point that survives and could be legitimately argued by Mr. Rege, the learned advocate appearing in support of the petition, is the point relating to the period of notice that should be given by the landlord under Section 88D(2) of the Tenancy Act. An admission had been made in the Courts below that a notice terminating the tenancy issued by the landlord on June 8, 1963 had not been replied to by the petitioner at all. The findings of the authorities below is concurrent on this that the petitioner did receive the notice given by the respondent. Mr. Rege, therefore, was forced to confine his arguments only to the question of the period of notice that should be issued by the landlord under Section 88D(2) of the Tenancy Act. According to Mr. Rege, since Section 88D(2) itself does not prescribe any period of notice and since by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Tenancy Act the provisions of chap. V of the Transfer of Property Act have been made applicable to the tenancies under the Tenancy Act, it was incumbent upon the respondent to give a notice of six months for terminating the tenancy of the petitioner before he could make an application to the appropriate authority for obtaining possession of the land. In support of his contention that where no particular period is prescribed under the Tenancy Act, the provision under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act applies, Mr. Rege relied upon a judgment of a division Bench of this Court in Laxmibai Yadavrao Jadhav v. Namdeo Narayan Jadhav (1969) Special Civil Application No. 160 pf 1969.