1979 (3) TMI 209 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Heritability of tenant's right under Section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before the 1956 amendment.
2. Applicability of the 1956 amendment to the heirs of tenants who died before its commencement.
3. Interpretation of Section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before and after the 1956 amendment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Heritability of tenant's right under Section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before the 1956 amendment:
The core issue was whether the right of a tenant to recover possession of land under Section 37, if the landlord ceased to cultivate it, was heritable. The Court noted that under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, Explanation II to Section 7 explicitly included the tenant's heirs. However, the 1948 Act, before the 1956 amendment, lacked a similar provision. The Court concluded that the right under Section 37 was not heritable before the 1956 amendment, emphasizing the significant omission of a provision corresponding to Explanation II to Section 7 of the 1939 Act in the 1948 Act.

2. Applicability of the 1956 amendment to the heirs of tenants who died before its commencement:
The Court examined whether the heirs of a tenant who died before the 1956 amendment could exercise the tenant's right to recover possession. The Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Vasant Hariba Londhe v. Jagannath Ramchandra Kulkarni, which held that Section 40, as amended in 1956, automatically continued the tenancy to the tenant's heirs. However, since the tenant in the present case died before the 1956 amendment, the Court found that the heirs could not exercise the right under Section 37, as the amended Section 40 did not apply retrospectively.

3. Interpretation of Section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before and after the 1956 amendment:
The Court compared Section 40 before and after the 1956 amendment. Before the amendment, Section 40 required the landlord to offer to continue the tenancy to the tenant's heirs, but it did not specify the consequences if the offer was not made. After the amendment, Section 40 deemed the tenancy to continue automatically to the tenant's heirs. The Court noted that the pre-amendment Section 40 did not create a heritable right to recover possession under Section 37. The Court emphasized that the 1948 Act, before the 1956 amendment, did not provide for automatic continuation of tenancy to the heirs, unlike the amended Section 40.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the right under Section 37 was not heritable before the 1956 amendment, and the heirs of a tenant who died before the amendment could not exercise this right. The Court's interpretation was based on the language of Section 40 before the 1956 amendment, and it did not extend the heritability of the right under Section 37 to the pre-amendment period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed without any order regarding costs.