NAKABAI Vs. MAHADU SAKHARAM ADSULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal, against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal, on a certificate by him, raises a question of some importance, namely whether tenancy rights of a statutory tenant in the agricultural lands belonging to the Public Trust, covered by Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') are heritable or not.

(2.) The appellant--the original plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are sisters. Defendant No. 1 is the son of the defendant No. 2. Plaintiff's mother Bhagirathibai died on 31st May 1958. The plaintiff filed this suit for possession of her share, as an heir, in the properties left by her mother including the agricultural lands detailed at Serial Nos. B, C and D in part (1) of the plaint. The lands belong to a Public Trust and the deceased Bhagirathibai was the tenant thereof. The lands are held to have been covered by Section 88B of the Act. The plaintiff's suit was decreed by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. Apte J. however, allowed defendant No. 1's Second Appeal to the extent of the lands in paras B to D of the plaint, on the limited ground that tenancy rights in the lands of the Public Trusts covered by Section 88B of the Act were not heritable. The correctness of this view is assailed in this appeal.

(3.) That lands belong to Devastan and the Devastan is registered as a Public Trust and is covered by Section 88B of the Act is not in dispute. AH the Courts have proceeded on the basis that Bhagirathibai was a statutory tenant of the lands in dispute. It has been consistently held by this Court that statutory tenant holds only a personal right to remain in possession of the property, during his lifetime as long as he complies with other terms of tenancy, and that he does not hold any estate or heritable or transferable interest therein. This is because it is the statute that prevents his eviction notwithstanding the termination of his contractual tenancy. Judgments of this Court in State of Bombay v. Virendra Motabhoy, reported in (1950) 52 Bom LR 627 and Eruch J. Bepasola v. B, D. Mirchandani reported in (1953) 55 Bom LR 582, dealing with the tenancies in the house property and in Bai Jamna v. Bai Dhani reported in (19591 61 Bom LR 419 dealing with the tenancy of agricultural lands are illustrative of this view. Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi reported in arising out of Rent Act further confirmed same view. Statutory tenant in this case was held incompetent to sublet. In the case of J. C. Chatterjee v. Kishan Tandon reported in statutory tenancy was held not to be heritable on the same basis.