Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Mr. Sali, who appears on behalf of the petitioner in one of these Special Civil Applicatiosn contended that Section 19 of theCeiling Act confers an independent right of rsumptionin favour of a landlord; that a landlord under that sectionis entitled to restoration of possession if the conditiosn laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of htesaid section are fulfilled; that the expression "it appears" used in that sectionis wide enough to include that prima facie the landlord has a right of resumption for personal cultivationin respect of the surplus land or a part thereof under the relevant tenancy law applicabel to such land: that there is a non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in that tenancy law" appearing in the substantive provisions of the said section; that the effect of this non-obstante clause is plenary and unqualified and the limitatison imposed by the relevant tenancy law shoudl not be invoked for determinign the extent of area of surplus land that the landlord is entitled to resume that the right referred to in Section 19(b) of the Ceiling Act is a right simiplicter for resumption of land and not the right simpliciter for resumption of land and not the right circumcribed by the conditiosn imposed by the relevant tenancy law for its enforcement; that having regard to the scheme of the Ceilling Act and especially Section 19 thereof the petitioner as landlady is entitled to possession of all surplus pieces of land held by the tenant repondent No. 2 from her so long as her total holding after such restoration of possession does not exceed the ceiling area as prescribed by the Ceiling Act. The other counsel who appeared for the petitioner in the various Special Ci vil Applications have adopted this contention but Mr. Deshmukh on behalf of the petitioners in some of those Special Civil Applications made a submission in the alternative. he submitted that having regard to the scheme of hteCeiling Act and especially Sxection 19 thereof a landlord is entitled to possession of all surplus lands held from him by the tenant so long as his total holdings after such restorationof possession does not exceed the ceilling area as fixed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultrual Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. 67 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act").

7. The first contention that has been urged on behalf of the petitions in these Special Civil Applications is that Section 19 of the Ceiling Act confers an independent powre upon the landlord to resume land and usch power is conferred independently of hteright that such land lord will have under therelevant tenancy law. In order to appreciate this contention it is not meerely sufficient to confine our attention to the provisions of Section 19. but it is equally necessary to rfefer to the matters which are to be enquired into under Section 18 of theCeiling Act while holdign an enquiry. As clause (h)provices one of the matters which the Collekctor during thecourse of an enquiry has to detrmine is whether any land is held by the person as tenant and if so whether his landlord has a subsisting right of resumption of the land for personal cultivation under the relevatn tenancy law applicable thereto. This enquiry is necessary because one of the conditions precedent to be fulfilled before the operative part of Section 19 can come into play is that it must inter alia appear to the authority bholding the enquiry that the landlord has a right of resumptior for personal cultivation in respect of that land or a part thereof under therelevant tenancy law applicaberl to such land . When this and other conditiosn are fulfilled then theCollector is under an obligation to restore possession to the landlord of so much only of the surplus land as he is entitled to resume. These are not isolated independent provisdions but they are provisiosn corrected to each other and any part thereo fis not to eb divorced from the rest Actually Section 19 itself does not confer any right upon a landlord to resume land held from him by a tenant. It merely casts an obligation upon the Collector to restore possession to the landlord of so much only of the surplus land as he (landlord) is entiteld to resume . In our opinion. Section 19 itself doe snto confer power of resumptionon a landlord not is our attention drawn to any other provision of the Ceiling Act which confers such power of resumption on the land lord. The only provision which entitleds and landlord to resume is contained in the relevant tenancy law as defined in Section 2 (26) of hteCeiling Act. Section 19 itself does not confer an independent right on a landlord to resume land held from him by a tenant.

9. That such is the correct interpretation of amplitude of the provisions of section 19 of the Ceiling Act is made clear by the provisions of Section 21. Section 20 of the Ceiling Act prescribe the manner of considering the claim of landlord to land under Section 19. The very opening part of sub-section (1) Starts withe the words "For the purpose of deciding the extent of land which should be restored to the possession of the landlord under Section 19." The "extent of land" to be restored to the possession of the landlord depends upon the extent of his right to resume land held from him by a tenant. Before determination as regards the extent of the area to be restored to the possession of the landlord depends upon the extent of his right to resume land held from him by a tenant. Before determination as regards the extent of the area to be restored possession of the landlord depends upon the extent of his right to resume land held from him by a tenantk. Before determination as regards the extent of the area to be restored possession to the landlord. Section 20 confers a right upon a landlord to be heard and that is why he has to be given a notice by the Collector as prescribed in Section 20. Such notice to show cause requires a landlord to state his claim for restoration of possession of his claim for restoration as regards the extent of the area to be restored possession to the landlord. Section 20 confers a right upon a landlord to be heard and that is why he has to be given a notice by the Collector as prescribed in Section 20. Such notice to show cause requires a landlord to state his claim for restoration of possession of such surplus land for the purpose of that section and to show cause why the balance of such land should not be deemed to be surplus land. The expression "surplus land" used in connection with the balance of the surplus land, means the land remaining after the claim under Section 19 is satisfied. As sub-section, (3) of Section 20 shows, one of the matters to be ascertained by the Collector is whether the landlord is entitled to restoration of such surplus land, means the land remaining after the claim under Section 19 is satisfied. As sub-section (3) of Section 20 shows, one of the matters to be ascertained by the Collector is whether the landlord is entitled to restoration of possession of the whole or any part of such surplus land and if so, the area and other particulars of such land. He has also to ascertain whether the balance of any such land shall be surplus land, and if so, the extent and particulars of such surplus land, That the extent of right of a landlord for restoration of possession is only limited to the extent of right of a landlord for restoration of possession is only limited to the extent to which such landlord is entitled to resume land held from him by a tenant and the restriction, if any imposed under the relevant tenancy law, upon the extent of the right of resumption will be attracted for determining the area of the surplus land of which possession should be restored to the landlord under Section 19 is clear from Section 20. Even the contents of declaration to be made by the Collector at the end of ane nquiry clearly support that view, as is provided by the different things to be stated in such a declaration as prescribed by Section 21(1) of the Ceiling Act. Thus reading Section 18, 19 20 and 21 of the Ceiling Act it is quite clear that the right of a landlord to resume is such rightas is conferred upon him by the relevant tenancy law end it will be subject to all the restrictions which are imposed by the relevant tenancy law in relation to the extent of the area of which resumption can be claimed by the landlord. The very language of these sections clearly negatives the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the landlord is entitled to all surplus lands held from him by the tenant so long as his total holding after such restoration of possession does not exceed the seiling area as determined under the Ceiling Act.

14. The provisions of the tenancy Act to which we have referred by way of illustration indicate that the relevant tenancy law contemplates different categories of landlords who may be entitled to terminate a tenancy and imposes different types of restrictions as regards the extent of the area in respect of which such categories of landlords can terminate the tenancy and resume possession.

15. On behalf of the petitioners it was further urged that apart from the above provisions of the tenancy Act there everal other sections under which a landlord is entitled to resume land held from him by a tenant. Reference was made to the provisions of Sections 15, 32E, 32P, and 35A of the Tenancy Act, Section 15 of the Tenancy Act deals with termination of tenancy by surrender thereof. Sub-section (2) of the section inter alia provides "where a tenant surrenders his tenancy, the landlord shall be entitled to retain the land so surrendered for the like purposes, and to the like extent, and in so far as the conditions are applicable subject to the like conditions as are provided in section 31 and 31 and 31A for the termination of tenancies". This section does not talk of resumption but deals wth a right of a landlord to retain possession of the surrendered land. Section 32E of the Tenancy Act provides that the balance of any land after the purchase by the tenant under Section 32 shall be disposed of in the manner laid donw in Section 15 as if it were land surrendered by the tenant. This also is not a case of resumption, but has been treated on the same footing as land surrendered. Section 32P deals with power of tribunal or the Government to resume land which is covered by the provisions of sub-section (1) thereof under Section 32P there is no case of resumption by a landlord as such but the resumption is by the tribunal or the State and the land is to be disposed of in the manner prescribed by that section Section 35A deals with determination of excess land cases and sub-section (2) thereof provides that the excess land determined under sub-section (1) shall be at the disposal of the tribunal under Section 32P. Thus the provisions of section 32Pare indirectly invoked so fara s disposal is concerned and disposal is at the hands of the tribunal. Thus none of the sections to which our attention is invited deals with a landlord's right to terminte tenancy and to resume possession of land leased by him to the tenant for personal cultivation. This group of sections. in our opinion, is of no assistancee for determining the extent of the right which a landlord has in respect of resumption of landheld from him by a tenant.