1975 (3) TMI 132 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the alleged surrender by the tenant.
2. Jurisdiction of the Circle Officer.
3. Compliance with mandatory requirements of s.5(3) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and Rule 2-A.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Alleged Surrender by the Tenant:
The common question in these appeals is whether the alleged surrender by the tenant was valid. The Deputy Collector and the Tribunal answered this negatively on three grounds: (i) The surrender was a sham transaction as the tenant continued to be in possession and paid rent until 1959; (ii) The Circle Officer's order was without jurisdiction; (iii) The surrender was not verified as required by law. The High Court upheld the finding on ground (i) and held that the alleged surrender was a nullity due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of s.5(3) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1953 read with Rule 2-A.

2. Jurisdiction of the Circle Officer:
The Deputy Collector held that Shri Bhokare's order was not passed by a Mamlatdar as required by the Tenancy law and was thus without jurisdiction and void. The High Court did not find it necessary to delve into this ground further.

3. Compliance with Mandatory Requirements of s.5(3) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and Rule 2-A:
Section 5(3)(b) of the Act requires that a tenant's surrender of tenancy must be in writing and verified before the Mamlatdar in the manner prescribed. Rule 2-A mandates that the Mamlatdar must satisfy himself that the tenant understands the nature and consequences of the surrender and that it is voluntary, and endorse his findings on the document of surrender. The Court concluded that these provisions are mandatory. The Circle Officer did not endorse his satisfaction on the tenant's deed of surrender, thus failing to comply with the statutory requirements. The Court held that non-compliance with these mandatory provisions rendered the surrender invalid and ineffectual.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, holding that the requirements of s.5(3)(b) and Rule 2-A are mandatory. The failure to comply with these provisions vitiated the surrender, rendering it non-est. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with one set of costs.