IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 3376 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO. 3376 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO. 3376 OF 1991 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3377 OF 1991. WRIT PETITION NO. 3377 OF 1991. WRIT PETITION NO. 3377 OF 1991. Ravindra Ramchandra Sabnis & Ors ..Petitioners. Vs. Dinkar Nana Patil & Ors ..Respondents. Mr N. V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr S. G. Karandikar i/b Mr V.B. Rajure for the Respondents. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: 11.09. 2008. DATED: 11.09. 2008. DATED: 11.09. 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the petitions. 2. Both petitions involve common question of facts and law between the same parties, since they relate to different years. Consequently, these petitions were filed. Both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application Nos. 82 of 1987 and 83 of 1987, whereby the Revision Applications were partly allowed and the judgments and orders passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.14 and that of the Tenancy Aval Karkoon are set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tenancy Aval Karkoon - Kagal for de-novo inquiry giving sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 4. During the pendency of these petitions, learned Single Judge (Shri Mohite J) vide order dated 2.12.2005 was pleased to direct the tenancy Aval Karkoon to record the additional evidence and to remit the recorded evidence back to this Court. Accordingly, the evidence was recorded by the Aval Karkoon and the matter was remitted to this Court. After receipt of the additional evidence both these matters were placed before this Court for hearing. Accordingly, they were heard. 5. Subject matter, in the present petition, is agricultural land bearing Block No.198, admeasuring 81 ( 3 ) Ar situate at village Yamage, tq. Kagal, District Kolhapur. The original landlady Smt. Kamalbai Ramchandra Sabnis was the owner of the subject land. She had been allotted the subject land towards maintenance vide Maintenance Deed dated 28.3.1958. The present respondents are the tenants in the subject land. The landlady had moved an application under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Tenancy Act" for short) for terminating tenancy and for seeking possession of the subject land on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the years 1070-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. The said application came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. 278/1980. One more application was made by the applicant-landlady for the termination of tenancy on the ground of arrears of rent for the years 1979-80 to 1980-81 contending that for the default of rent for the consecutive years gave no right to terminate tenancy of the tenant under Section 25 (2) of the Tenancy Act. 6. Before I proceed to examine this aspect, it will be appropriate to advert to Section 25(2) of the Act. The same reads thus : ( 4 ) "25(2): Nothing in this section shall apply to any tenant whose tenancy is terminated for nonpayment of rent if he has failed for any three years to pay rent and the landlord has given intimation to the tenant to that effect within a period of three months on each default." 7. On plain language of this provision, the landlord is obliged to give intimation to the tenants within a period of three months on each default. The question is: when the default in payment of rent by the tenants would commence? To answer this query, it will be useful to advert to Section 14(1)(a)(i). It stipulates the period before which the tenant is expected to pay the rent. By this provision, the tenant is expected to pay the rent for any revenue year before 31st day of May thereof. The expression revenue year has not been defined in this Act of 1948, but has been defined in Section 2(32) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to mean the year commencing on such date, as the State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. The Notification issued by the Revenue Department provides revenue year as 1st August to 31st July. There is substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the Respondents that at any rate, there can be no default ( 5 ) before the 31st day of May of any revenue year, having regard to the plain language of Section 14(1)(a)(i). Section 25(2) has been interpreted to mean that the landlord is obliged to give intimation to the tenant within a period of three months on each default. This proposition is reinforced by the decision of the Division Bench reported in 1970 (LXVIII) BLR 285 in 1970 (LXVIII) BLR 285 in 1970 (LXVIII) BLR 285 in the case of Dattu Subrao Patil vs. Dattatraya the case of Dattu Subrao Patil vs. Dattatraya the case of Dattu Subrao Patil vs. Dattatraya Pandurang Patil. Pandurang Patil. Pandurang Patil. The relevant discussion is found at pages 289 to 290, where the Division Bench of our High Court has held that if the landlord wants to rely on the failure or default, the landlord is required to give specific notice of termination of tenancy on the basis of "that default", and the tenant has been afforded an opportunity to remedy the default by paying the rent due within a period of three months from the notice given by the landlord. 8. As is noted earlier, the period of default would commence only from 1st of June of the relevant revenue year; and the landlord is obliged to give notice within three months therefrom. In other words, the view taken by the Revisional Authority in the fact situation of the present case will have to be upheld. ( 6 ) 9. From the pleadings of the application, it appears that the landlady claims to have given oral intimation in the month of June of each year of the alleged default to the tenant. The pleadings in this behalf are to be found in para 3 of the application. 10. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the evidence of the landlady was recorded. The legal heirs of the landlady filed affidavit in support of the application so as to prove the arrears of rent and the default committed by the tenant. In the entire examination-in-chief there is no whisper with respect to oral intimation alleged to have been given by the landlady to the tenant in the month of June of each year. On the contrary, in the cross-examination there is clear cut admission given by the deponent that no such intimation was given to the tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. 11. In this view of the matter, there is no compliance of Section 25 (2) of the Tenancy Act. If that be so, the Authorities below; namely, Tenancy Aval Karkoon and the Land Acquisition Officer No.14, ( 7 ) Kolhapur both were right in rejecting application of the landlady. 12. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and orders of both authorities are restored. Applications of the petitioners seeking termination of tenancy on the ground of default in payment of rent stand rejected. Petitions are dismissed for the reasons recorded with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.)