TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vour should be verified under s.5(3) ,of the Bombay Tenancy Act 67 of 1948. To this application the landlord annexed a letter of surrender bearing the thumb-impression of the tenant. The Mamlatdar did not verify the surrender. or pass any final order in the matter. The landlord s application however came up before Shri Bhokare, the then Circle Officer of Miraj who after recording the statements of the tenant and the landlord, made this order on it. The applicant and the tenant are present. The tenant Shri Chaware states that the suit land viz. S. No. 102/1 measuring 8-22 and assessed at ₹ 44-3-0 of Haripur belongs to the applicant and that he is cultivating the same as a protected tenant. He further adds that he does not want to cultivate the same any longer and so he is surrendering the possession willingly along with crops and also the fight as pro. tenant. 1, therefore, order that the possession of the suit land should be handed over to the applicant with the crops and the right as pro. tenant should be deleted under Section 29 (i) (3) of the B.T. and AL. Act 1948 Haripur Bhokare 18-9-53. (M. M. Bhokare) Circle Officer, Sangli. Pursuant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed two revision applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the revision applications and affirmed the findings of the Deputy Collector. The landlords and their transferees thereupon moved the High Court of Bombay by two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution for impugning the revisional orders of the Tribunal. The High Court, as already stated, dismissed the petitions. Hence these appeals. The common question that falls to be determined in these appeals is whether in the circumstances of this case, the alleged surrender by the tenant was valid? The Deputy Collector and the Tribunal have concurrently answered this question in the negative on the threefold ground : (i) That the so-called surrender was a sham transaction because the tenant continued thereafter to be in possession and paid rent to the landlord upto 1959; (ii) That Circle Officers were not empowered to, dispose of tenancy cases and as such Shri Bhokare s order, dated September 18. 1953, was without jurisdiction and (iii) That the surrender had not been verified as required by law. The High Court upheld the finding on ground (i), the same being a finding of fact no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recting delivery of possession to the landlord and deletion of the tenant s name from the record of rights. It is argued that the mere fact that the Circle Officer s order or endorsement was strictly not in the form prescribed, would not invalidate the surrender. In this connection, the learned Counsel drew our attention to this sentence in the judgment of the Tribunal : But there is no doubt that the above formalities were gone through before the Circle Officer . Thus, the first point to be considered is, whether the requirements, of these provisions are mandatory or directory. No universal rule , said Lord Campell (1) can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of Courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope. Such intention of the legislature is therefore to be ascertained upon a review of the language, subject matter and importance of the provision in relation to the general object intended to be secured, the mischief, if any, to be prevented and the remedy to be promoted by the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onts against two types of dangers-one against possible coercion, undue influence and trickery proceeding from the landlord, and the other against the tenant s own ignorance, improvidence and attitude of helpless self-resignation sterming from his weaker position in the tenant-landlord relationship. Thus, the imperative language, the beneficient purpose and importance of these provisions for efficacious implementation of the general scheme of the Act all unerringly lead to the conclusion that they were intended to be mandatory. Neglect of any of these statutory requisites would be fatal. Disobedience of even one of these mandates would render the surrender invalid and ineffectual, Having seen that the requirements of s.5(3)(b) and Rule 2A are obligatory, and not directory, it remains to be considered whether these imperatives have been substantially complied with in the manner prescribed, and if not, what is the consequence of non-compliance ? The question of inherent jurisdiction apart, all that the Circle Officer did in this case, was that he recorded the statements of the tenant and landlord and made the order-which we have reproduced in full earlier in this judgment. Altho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
