Case: Dhan Singh Ramkrishna Chaudhri &amp; Ors Vs. Laxminarayan Ramkishan &amp; Anr

Appellants are heirs of one Ramkrishna Khandu Chaudhari who was a protected tenant of the suit lands belonging to Respondent No. 1. The landlord made an application against the tenant in the Court of Extra Aval Karkum for possession of the suit lands under S. 29 read with Sections 14 and 25(2) ofthe Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the tenant had committed defaults in payment of the rents for the years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56. The Aval Karkun who tried the application, found that the annual rent of the lands payable by the tenant had paid Rs. 1045/12/- towards the rent of these three years. He held that the appellants were not willful defaulters and granted them under S. 25 (1) three months time to pay the arrears of rent. He however refused to pass any order for payment of the subsequent rent. The tenant did not appeal against this order. But the landlord preferred an appeal to the District Deputy Collector, Jalgaon who on September 30, 1961 allowed the appeal set aside the order of the Aval Karkun and remanded the case for finding out the exact amount of the arrears up to the date of the order and decreeing the claim accordingly. The landlord preferred a Revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which allowed the same by its order, dated September 4, 1962, and remanded the case to be examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Raja, Ram v. Aba Maruti, (1962) Supp 1 SCR 739 = (AIR 1962 SC 753  ) and in some High Court judgments. It further directed that the District Deputy Collector might allow the parties to lead additional evidence, if he thought it necessary.3. On remand, the Deputy Collector allowed the parties to lead evidence and redecided the case. He held that the rent fixed was Rs. 500/- per year, and that only one default, and not three defaults, had been proved and consequently, the landlord was not entitled to the possession of the suit lands. He remitted the case to the Extra Aval Karkun for passing an order under Section 25(1) of the Act. The landlord again went in revision before the Tribunal against this order, dated April 23, 1964. The Tribunal held that the Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to reopen the issue relating to the amount of agreed rent between the parties. It also examined the law laid down by this Court in Raja Ram Mahadevs case (supra). It set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and directed delivery of possession of the suit lands to the landlord.4. For impugning this order, dated April 13, 1967, of the Tribunal, the tenants moved the High Court by a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of the High Court, who by his order, dated November 14, 1969, referred this question to the Division Bench: "Can the tenant be said not to have failed for any three years to pay rent within the meaning of Sec. 25 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, when as a result of part payments made by him, total amount of arrears does not exceed rent equivalent to two years.5. The Division Bench decided this question against the tenants and dismissed their writ petition. The High Court granted a certificate under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution that the case was fit for appeal to this Court:

Reasoning: 16. An analysis of the definition of Section 7 would show that the rent payable by a tenant (subject to the maximum rate fixed under Section 6) is (a) the rent agreed upon between such tenant and landlord or (b) in the absence of any agreement, the rent according to usage of the locality or (c) where there is dispute as regards the reasonableness of the rent payable according to such agreement or usage, the reasonable rent.17. The case before us fell under clause (a). The landlord alleged that the agreed rent was Rs. 850/-. Since the rent fixed under the Government Notification was less than the agreed rent, the landlord actually claimed an amount as rent calculated on the basis of the lower rate i.e. Rs. 685/5/- per annum. However, the tenant contended that the agreed rent was Rs. 500/- per annum. The Extra Aval Karkun reduced this point of controversy into an issue to this4. What was the rent fixed between the parties in respect of the suit lands.He answered this point, as "Rs. 685/5/-.The language of sub-section (2) is unambiguous, clear and unequivocal, It is not susceptible of two interpretations. There is therefore no scope - even with the aid of any rule of beneficent interpretation - for construing this sub-section in a manner contrary to its plain ordinary meaning. Moreover, the point is covered by the decision of this Court in Raja Rams case (supra) and we are bound by the same.26. In Raja Rams case (supra) the tenants were in default in paying rent for three years and due notices had been served by the landlords terminating the tenancies. They applied to Mamlatdar under Section 29 of the Act for possession of the lands. The Mamlatdar refused to make an order for possession on the ground that the tenants were entitled to relief, against forfeiture on equitable principles. In the fourth appeal before the Court, in respect of the default in the first year the tenant had been granted relief against forfeiture under Section 25(1) of the Act. The tenant contended that the default in the first year had merged in the order under section 25(1) and could not be relied upon for holding that he had defaulted for three years. It was held by this Court that the landlords were entitled to orders for possession because upon default in payment of rent for three years a statutory right accrued to the landlords under Section 25(2) to terminate the tenancy and to obtain possession. There was no provision in the Act for granting relief against forfeiture in such a case the provision in Section 29(3) that the Mamlatdar "shall pass such orders as he deems fit did not give him such a power. The Act merely empowered him to grant relief where the tenant was not in arrears for more than two years. No relief against forfeiture could be granted to a tenant who fails to pay rent for any three years within the period specified in Section 14, either on equitable grounds or under Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act.Sub-section (2) of S. 25 lays down in the clearest peremptory terms that if the tenant fails to pay the rent for any three years within the period specified in S. 14, the authority concerned will be left with no discretion under sub-section (1) to allow the tenant to pay up the arrears and on such payment to direct that the tenancy had not been terminated. The words "the tenant has made defaults for more than two years" and "arrears" in the underlined portion of the above-quoted passage convey nothing more or different from what is explicit in the words "if he has failed for any three years to pay rent within the period specified in S. 14" occurring in sub-section (2) of S. 25. All that was intended to emphasise was that even if the tenant defaults in payment of rent for any three years, but the arrears relatable to these defaults are cleared as a result of the tender of full amount due by the tenant and its acceptance by the landlord, this sub-section (2) will not come into operation and the landlords application for eviction, when no arrears are outstanding would not be maintainable.31. It will bear repetition that "failure to pay rent for any three years" is not the same thing as failure to pay rent equivalent to more than two years rent. Even if the tenant fails to pay part of the rent due in any year within the period specified in Section 14, he defaults to pay rent for that year. Such partial defaults are also defaults within the contemplation of sub-section (2) of Section 25. Any other construction would lead to strange results, and even a persistently defaulting tenant would be able to stave off eviction by paying only a part of the rent due every year so that the unpaid arrears remain, in the aggregate, less than the total rent of two years.