Dhanavate Vs. A N Patil Tukarane & Anr  INSC 679
(14 November 1995)
M. Punchhi, S.C. Sen.
O R D
narrow point before the High Court as also before the Revenue Authorities was
whether the appellant-tenant was in arrears of rent beyond 3 years and could
action be taken under Sec. 25(1) or 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy &
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ? The distinction between the two provisions is
25(1) enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against termination of tenancy for
non-payment of rent by facilitating payment of rent on call to the tenant to
pay it directly to the landlord or in court with costs of the proceedings
within 15 days from the date of the order, and on failure of which to suffer an
ejectment. In contrast, Sec. 25(2) carves out an exception that if the tenant
is in arrears on his failure to pay rent for any three years, the landlord has
to give an intimation to that effect to the tenant within a period of 3 months
of each default, and then ejectment must follow as a consequence and the
remedial provision under Sec. 25(1) cannot come to the rescue of the tenant.
The finding recorded by the High Court is that the instant was a case covered
under Sec. 25(2) and that the Mamlatdar could not proceed under Sec. 25(1)
permitting the tenant to save the tenancy on payment of arrears of rent within
15 days of the order. The High Court has given adequate reasons to come to that
view. We see no justification to alter the same.
appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
shall be no order as to costs.