1993 (7) TMI 342 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to claim benefit u/s 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
2. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the finding on collusion.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 32(1-B)
The Supreme Court examined if a tenant who surrendered the tenancy could claim benefit u/s 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The appellant claimed to be a tenant since 1949 and argued that he was dispossessed before April 1, 1957, thus entitling him to restoration of possession and purchase rights under the Act. The High Court found that the appellant had surrendered his tenancy before August 1956, which was supported by entries in the revenue records. The Tribunal, however, found the surrender invalid due to non-compliance with the amended law requiring written surrender. The Supreme Court held that voluntary surrender or leaving possession does not amount to "dispossession" as contemplated u/s 32(1-B). Therefore, the appellant did not meet the requirement of being dispossessed and was not entitled to the benefits under the section.

Issue 2: Tribunal's Jurisdiction on Collusion
The High Court had set aside the Tribunal's finding on collusion between the appellant and the defendant. The Supreme Court noted that since the appellant did not qualify for benefits u/s 32(1-B), the issue of collusion became academic and did not require further examination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim benefits u/s 32(1-B) as he was not "dispossessed" but had voluntarily surrendered the tenancy. The High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order was upheld.

Dissenting Opinion:
Justice V. Ramaswami dissented, arguing that the High Court erred in interfering with the Tribunal's factual findings under Article 227 of the Constitution. He contended that the appellant continued to be in possession and that the High Court's inference of surrender before December 1956 was not warranted by the facts. He concluded that the appeal should succeed, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Tribunal's decision.