Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Sarubai vs Vinayak Govind Chandrate And Ors. on 28 April, 1971

Vithal Ranganath Gaikwad And Ors. vs Murlidhar Vaman Dhavale And Anr. on 10 September, 1974

9. Undoubtedly, strong reliance was placed on behalf of the tenant on the decision in Sarubai v. Vinayak, reported in AIR 1973 Bom 71. In that case , a view has been taken that even for the purposes of Section 33-B (5) (a) the order under Section 15 must be construed as an order under Section 31, and it was held that the landlord, who had already obtained half the land originally leased to the tenant for personal cultivation upon a surrender under Section 15, will not be entitled to recover possession of the remaining half of the land. The facts in that case were that the landlord had failed an application under Section 33-B read with Section 29(2) of the Act after obtaining certificate under Section 88-C. The application was resisted by the tenant on the ground that the landlord had already obtained k from him half the land originally leased to him for personal cultivation upon a surrender under Section 15 of the Act, and hence in view of the provisions of Section 33-B (5) (a) of the Act. the landlord was not entitled to recover possession of the remaining half of the land, which was the subject-matter of dispute between him and the landlord then. The contention of the tenant was upheld by the Court in view of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act. The Court observed as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Chhaban Bhau Fulari vs Suresh V.Fulari & Others on 5 January, 2018

(3) The land or any portion thereof, which the landlord is not entitled to retain under sub-section (2), shall be liable to be disposed of in the manner provided under clauses(c) of sub-section (2) of Section 32-P." It was urged on behalf of the tenant that since sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that whenever 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 sections 31 and 31-A" for all practical purposes, the landlord's obtaining possession for personal cultivation upon termination of a tenancy by way of surrender under Section 15 should be regarded on the same ::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2018 02:15:25 ::: wp3500.97 -32- footing as under Section 31, and therefore an order passed under Section 15 for all practical purposes should be regarded as an order passed under Section 31 of the said Act and thus Section 37 gets clearly attracted. It was pointed out that such a contention has been accepted by Mr. Justice Vaidya in Sarubai's case reported in AIR 1973 Bom 71. It is not possible to accept this contention for the reasons which we shall presently indicate. It is true that sub-section (2) makes a reference to Ss. 31 and 31-A but the mere reference to Sections 31 and 31-A or the further fact that the landlord's right to retain land has been subjected to certain restrictions mentioned therein, viz, he can retain the land subject to the like purposes or the like extent or the like conditions as are mentioned in Section 31 and 31-A cannot convert an order passed under Section 15 into an order passed under Sections 31 of the said Act. In our view, all that sub-section (2) of Section 15 does is to incorporate by reference the conditions of termination of tenancy embodied in Sections 31 and 31-A of the said Act, but because of that the order under Sections 15 cannot be regarded as one having been passed under Section 31 or Section 31-A of the said Act. The provisions in terms speaks of termination of tenancy brought about by surrender and not by a notice by a landlord as required by Section 31. It is only the consequences of a surrender of tenancy made by a tenant that are enjoined to be worked out having regard to such of the conditions as may be applicable as mentioned in Sections 31 and 31-A. That is the only effect of sub-section (2) making a reference to Section 31 and 31-A. The view expressed in Sarubai's case therefore cannot be regarded as correct.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document
1