Appeals Nos 1409 and 1721 of 1966
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 15 1965 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application Nos 746 and 747 of
section K Mehta and K L Mehta
for the appellants in both the appeals
M section Gupta for respondents Nos 1 and 2 in CA No 1409 of 1966
section section KhanduJa for respondent No 3 in both the appeals
658 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J
Badridas son of Ramgopal was the owner of fields Survey Nos 2 and 92 of village Bhamberi taluq Akot District Akola
On February 26 1958 Badridas granted a lease for cultivation of the lands to two brothers Kishan and Manik
At the end of the agricultural year 1958 59 Badridas  took possession of the lands from Kishan and Manik representating that he desired to cultivate the lands personally
Badridas cultivated the lands during the agricultural years 1959 60 and 1960 61 and thereafter on January 18 1961 he granted a lease of the lands for four years to Bhagwant son of Pundalik Kishan and Manik then applied on June 30 1961 under section 361 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act 1958 for an order restored them to possession alleging that their eviction from the lands was illegal
The Additional Tahsildar dismissed the application but in appeal the order was reversed
In the view of the appellate authority Kishan and Manik were in 1958 59 tenants of the lands and they were evicted otherwise than in accordance with the law and that they were entitled to be restored to possession under section 361 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act 1958
In a petition by Bhagwant the Revenue Tribunal reversed the order of the appellate authority
The Tribunal held that since Kishan and Manik had given up pos session of the lands volutarily and had allowed Badridas to cultivate the lands for the following two years they had no right to be reinstated into possession of the lands especially after the lands were let out by Badridas to Bhagwant
Kishan and Manik then moved in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur two Special Civil Applications Nos
746 and 747 of 1964 in respect of the two fields Survey Nos 2 and 92 separately
The High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal and directed that an order for pos session be made in favour of Kishan and Manik in respect of the two lands
With special leave these appeals have been preferred by Bhagwant
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act 1958 was brought into force on December 30 1958
Section 20 provides  A tenant may terminate the tenancy at any time by surrendering his interest of a tenant in favour of the landlord
Provided that such surrender shall be in writing and shall be verified before the Tahsildar in the prescribed manner 659 Section 36 of the Act provides   1  A tenant 
entitled to possession of any land 
under any of the provisions of this Act or as a result ofeviction in contraven tion of sub section 2 may apply in writing for each
possession to the Tahsildar
2 No landlord shall obtain possession of any land held by a tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar
For obtaining such order he shall make an application in the prescribed form and within
a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land is deemed to have accrued to him For the agricultural year 1958 59 Kishan and Manik were tenants in respect of two lands in question
Badridas took possession of the lands at the end of that year
Granting that Kishan and Manik delivered the lands voluntarily there could not under S 20 of the Act be a valid surrender unless the surrender was in writing and verified before the Tahsildar and in the prescribed manner
Possession obtained by Badridas was not lawful for Badridas obtained possession of the land from the tenants without complying with the requirements of section 20 and of sub section
2 of section 36
Sub section 2 of section 36 prohibits the landlord from obtaining possession of any land held by a tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar
Delivery of possession voluntarily by Kishan and Manik did not render the possession of Badridas valid
Under section 361 a tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub section
2 may apply in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession
Counsel for the appellant contended that section 362 does not commence with the expression Notwithstanding any agreement
usage decree or order of a court of law as section 19 of the Act does
and on that account it may reasonably be inferred that the Legislature intended that only those tenants shall be deemed entitled to possession within the meaning of section 361 who were dispossessed by fraud coercion or misrepresentation and not tenant who had voluntarily parted with possession of the lands
We are unable to agree with that contention
Section 19 provides that not with standing any agreement usage decree or order of a court of law tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall not be terminated exception the cases specified therein
Thereby it was intended to make the provisions of section 19 paramount
In section 20 of the Act which deals with surrender it is expressly enacted that surrender shall be in writing and shall be Verified in the prescribed manner
Surrender of tenancy which does not comply with the requirements of section 20 660 is ineffective
Again sub section
2 of section 36 imposes a disability upon the landlord from obtaining possession of any land occupied by a tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar
The terms of subs
2 of section 36 are explicit  they are not subject to any implication  that possession obtained with the consent of the tenant but without an order of the Tahsildar is valid In a recent judgment Madhao so Tatya Sonar vs The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors
1 the High Court of Bombay held that section 362 is plenary and controls section 20 of the Act
In the present case there is no surrender of tenancy in writing and no verification of surrender by the Tahsildar
We need express no opinion on the question Whether mere verification by the Tahsildar without an order of the Tahsildar authorising the landlord to obtain possession disentitles the tenant to claim possession under section 361
The appeals fail and tire dismissed
Having regard to all the circumstances however we think there should be no order as to costs in this Court
Counsel for the appellant Bhagwant submitted that there are crops standing on the lands and prayed that the appellant may be allowed to reap them
0one months time from the date of this judgment is given to the appellant to deliver possession of the lands
YP Appeals dismissed
1 Special Civil Application No 206 of 1967 decided on September 1112 1969


Summary:
The respondents obtained a lease for cultivation of land
On the landlord s desire to cultivate the land personally the respondents surrendered the lands to the landlord
The surrender was not in writing nor was there verification of the surrender by the Tehsildar
The landlord cultivated the land for a few years and thereafter granted a lease to the appellant
The respondents applied under section 36 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act 1958 for restoration of possession to them
On the question whether the eviction of respondent was legal this Court HELD  Possession obtained by the landlord was not lawful for he obtained possession of the lands from the tenants without complying with the requirements of section 20 and sub section
2 of section 36
Sub section 2 of section 36 prohibits the landlord from obtaining possession of any land held by a tenant except under an order of Tahsildar
Delivery of possession voluntarily by the respondents did not render possession of the landlord valid
Under s361 a tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub section
2 may apply in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession
1659 E By section 20 of the Act which deals with surrender it is expressly provided that surrender shall be in writing and shall be verified in the prescribed manner
Surrender of tenancy which does not comply with the requirements of section 20 is ineffective
Again the terms of sub section
2 of section 36 are explicit they are not subject to any implication that possession obtained with the consent of the tenant but without an order of the Tahsildar is valid
659 H In the present case there is no surrender of tenancy in writing and no verification of surrender by the Tahsildar
Madho So Tatya Sonar vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal  Ors
Special Civil Application No 2061967 dt
11 12 1969 followed