Case: Vallabbhai Nathabhai Vs. Bai jivi and Ors

1. The facts relevant to this appeal are short and no longer in dispute. Respondent 1 is the owner of Survey Nos. 974/2 and 975/4 situate in the villain Delol in district Panchmahals and the appellant at the material time was the tenant thereof. On May 15, 1956 the appellant voluntarily handed over possession of the said lands to respondent 1. It is, however, an admitted fact that the said surrender was not in writing and the procedure of inquiry and verification required by Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 57 of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) was not gone through. The surrender though voluntary thus was not in accordance with Sec. 15 and therefore was not valid and binding on the appellant. It is not in dispute that respondent 1 thereafter personally cultivated the said lands. On January 6, 1961 the appellant applied to the Deputy Collector under Sec. 84 of the Act for summary eviction of respondent 1. The Deputy Collector dismissed the application holding that the tenants remedy lay under Section 29 (1) of the Act. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, however, in a revision by the tenant set aside that order holding that Section 84 and not S. 29 (1) applied . Respondent 1 thereupon filed a writ petition under Article 227 in the High Court of Gujarat and the High Court held, on interpretation of Ss. 29 (1) and 84, that Section 84 did not apply in such cases and set aside the Tribunals order.

Court's reasoning:
We do not have to decide in the present case whether the said condition of there bring no other provision in the Act providing for eviction of a person in unauthorised occupation or wrongful possession applies only to cases falling under Clause (c) or to all cases under Clauses (a), (b) or (c), as in our opinion the present case is clearly one falling under Clause (c) and not Cl. (a) or (b) of Section 84. Clause (b) obviously cannot apply as the land in question was not one, the management of which was assumed under the provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 44, 45 and 61. So far as Clause (a) is concerned, it applies to cases in respect of the land, the transfer or acquisition of which either by the act of parties or by operation of law is invalid under the provisions of the Act. Clause (a) clearly refers to Ch. V of the Act which lays down certain restrictions on transfers of agricultural lands and acquisition of estates and lands. Sections 63, 64 and 65 in that chapter prohibit transfers of agricultural land to non-agriculturists and recognize only sales to persons and at prices specified therein.Clause (a) therefore, applies to transfers or acquisitions which are in breach of the provisions of Ch. V and possession or occupation whereof has been obtained under such invalid transfers or acquisitions. That being the position, the instant case would fall only under Clause (c) and not under Clause (a) as contended by Mr. Bhandare, and therefore, the condition that S. 84 would only apply to cases for which there is no other remedy under any of the provisions of the Act must apply to the present case. This condition shows that while giving drastic powers of summary eviction to an administrative officer the legislature was careful to restrict this power firstly because the result otherwise would be to deprive the person evicted under Section 84 of his remedy of appeal before the Collector which he would have if the order were to be passed under Section 29 (1) and secondly, because it would enable a tenant to by-pass a judicial inquiry by the Mamlatdar under Sec. 29 (1) by directly applying to the Collector under Section 84. Such a result could not have been intended by the legislature. Therefore, the contention that.Ss. 29 (1) and 84 provide alternative remedies and a choice to the tenant cannot possibly be correct.words "any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land" in Section 84, no doubt, are words of wide import and would include a landlord who is in unauthorised occupation or is wrongfully in possession.A landlord who under an invalid surrender is in possession of the land is, no doubt, a person in unauthorised occupation or is wrongfully in possession. But then Section 84 in express terms limits its application to three types of cases only, namely of a person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of the land (a) the transfer or acquisition of which etc. is invalid under the Act, or (b) the management of which has been assumed under the Act, or (c) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the provisions of the Act and the said provisions do not provide for the eviction of such person.5. In the case of a surrender which is not valid and binding on the tenant there is, as aforesaid, no termination of tenancy, and therefore, the landlord a not entitled to retain the land even though possession thereof has been handed over to him or has been voluntarily taken by him. The position in such a case is that the tenant has a right to apply to the Mamlatdar for restoration of possession to him claiming that there has been no termination of tenancy, that his possession continues to be protected by the provisions of the Act and that, therefore, possession should be restored to him. Such an application lies under Sec. 29 (1) and, when so made, it becomes the duty of the Mamlatdar under Sec. 70, Cl. (n) read with Sec. 29 (1) to put the tenant in possession of the land in question "under this Act". In such a case the tenant is claiming possession under the provisions of the and not on the strength of his own title, as when he applies for possession against a trespasser. That clearly being the position, propositions 3, 4 and 5 of Mr. Bhandare cannot be sustained.