Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sec.84, Land Revenue Code, provides that the cultivating section shall be presumed to end on 31st March only in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Bombay Land Revenue Code-Sec.84-Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act- Secs. 4A, 4B-Notice to quite given under sec.84, Revenue Code-Whether prohibits under sec.4B, Tenancy Act- Exemption also applies in case of public religious trust.

In the present case the lease had been terminated not on the ground that the period fixed, by agreement or usage for its duration, had expired, but on the ground that notice to terminate the lease had been given as required under sec.84 of the Code. This mode of termination by notice to quit is not prohibited under sec.4B of the Tenancy Act.

11. In light of aforesaid decisions which has been relied by learned advocate Mr.Divetia which decisions have been considered by below Courts while deciding the question whether notice to terminate tenancy of defendants given by plaintiffs are legal and valid or not. The reasoning given by trial Court in Para.4 to 7 is also equally relevant, therefore, same has been quoted as under :

"4. Learned advocate Mr.B.N.Desai appearing for the defendants has argued that the amending Act of August -1956 introduced for the first time Section-90 of the Act and Section-90 says that the enactments specified in schedules-II shall be amended to the extent mentioned in the fourth column thereof and in column-4 the new section 841A is inserted and it provides that the provisions of sections-841A is inserted and it provides that the provisions of sections 83 and 84 shall cease to apply to tenancies to which the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 apply. He argued that in view of the provisions of section 84-1 A, sections 83 and 84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code cease to apply to the tenancies governed by section-88B(A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural tenancy Act. He has argued that section 84-1A effecting unqualified repeal inasmuch as section 83 and 84 of the Land Revenue Code cease to apply to the tenancies governed by section 88B(1)(b) also. He has argued that to the tenancies governed by Section 88B(1)(b) of the Act, Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act, which is made applicable by section-3 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, provides for duration and termination of such tenancies and, therefore, the provisions of section 106 of the TP Act becomes the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act regarding duration and termination of tenancy, that is to say section 106 forms part of the Act and if it so, section 84 of the Code ceases to apply to such tenancies also and this being so, there is no local law available for the termination of such tenancies and, therefore, section 106 which provides six months' notice for termination of the agricultural tenancies is made applicable to such tenancies. Then he has argued that admittedly, in all the four suits the tenancy of the defendants has been terminated by three months' notice as provided in Section 84 of the Code and in view of the amending Act of August 1, 1956 the tenancy can be terminated by six months' notice as provided in Section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act and as the tenancy is not terminated in conformity of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act, the notices in all the four suits are not legal and valid and in the result, all the suits which are based on such notices require to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Manekji Edulji Mistry v. Maneksha Ardesha Irani, Vol.LXXV (1973) BLR 609. He urged before me that the learned advocate for the plaintiff may cite the decision of Gujarat High Court in Ramdas Narottamdas and Ors. v. Thakorbhai Shankerbhai Patel and Ors, 4 GLT 334. But that decision cannot be applied to this case because in that decision, His Lordships has not considered the amending Act of August 1, 1956, by which Section 90 of inserted in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and accordingly, by inserting sections 841-A of the Land Revenue Code, the provisions of Section 83 and 84 are made not applicable to the tenancies to which the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act apply.

7. Now, in these cases admittedly three months' notice u/s.84 of the Code is served on the defendants of all the suits and thereby, their tenancy is terminated. It will be clear that all the notices have been issued after the amending Act of 1956 came into force. Now, the effect of Section 90 of the Bombay Tenancy Act is to amend the provision of Section 84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code as mentioned in Schedule II and Schedule II introduces Section 841-A which says that the provisions of Sections 83 and 84 shall cease to apply to tenancies to which the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 apply. It has been observed in the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court (supra) that the plain meaning of the Act apply, the provisions of Section 83 and 84 of the Code shall cease to apply. Then, it is observed that if, therefore, the provisions contained in Sections 3, 4B, 8, 9, 9A, 9B, 10-A, 11 to 13 and 27 and provisions of Chapter IV, VIII in so far as the provisions are made applicable to the tenancies governed by Section 88B (1) of the Act considering the plain meaning of the provisions of Section 841 of the Code., it follows that the provisions of the Act apply to these tenancies and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 83 and 84 of the Code will cease to apply to them. Then, it has also been held that Section 84-1-A of the Code effects an unqualified repeal of Sections 83 and 84 of the Code in respect of the tenancies to which the provisions of the Act apply and so far as the tenancies falling u/s. 83 of the Act are concerned, Section-3 of the Act being made applicable to such tenancies section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act applies to such tenancies in the matters of duration and termination of such tenancy and section 84 of the code ceases to apply to such tenancies. Thus, from these decisions it become clear that in case of tenancies governed by Section 88-B the tenancy in our case cease, the notice terminating the tenancy must be in conformity with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act. Admittedly, in the cases before us the three months' notice are given to terminate the agricultural tenancy of the defendants. In view of the aforesaid decision, three months' notice u/s.84 of the Code is not sufficient to terminate the tenancy. Thus, in all the cases the tenancy of the defendants is not legally terminated in view of the aforesaid decision. Therefore, all the suits which are based on such notices are not maintainable. Therefore, I answer the preliminary issue No.4(a) in negative. In the result, the suits required to be dismissed on this law point."

"POINT NO.2

11. In these cases, admittedly three months' notice as per section 84 of Code is given but as per section 90, Schedule II of the Tenancy Act, provisions of section 84 do not apply to tenancies to which provisions of the Tenancy Act apply. To these suits, provisions of the Tenant Act, apply so for termination of tenancy, section 106, TP Act applies and as per that section, 6 months' notice is necessary for terminating such tenancy.

12. No doubt, in case of Arya Satyadev Dhanjibhai and another Vs. Bhailalbhai Ishwarbhai reported in Vol. XIII GLR page 398, a Division Bench of our own High Court relying upon earlier decision of Hon'ble Justice JB Mehta given in case of Patel Ramdas Narottamdas v. Thakorbhai Shankarbhai, has held that mode of termination by notice to quit as per section 84 is not prohibited under section 40 of the Act. In that case, section 48 and 88(B) of Tenancy Act and section 111 of TP Act were for interpretation before their Lordships. Attention of the Court was not drawn to section 90 of the Tenancy Act and effect of that section is not considered, by their Lordships. So that decision does not help the appellants.