Landlord Can't Be Hauled In Endless Rounds Of Meritless Litigations: Bombay High Court Ends Nearly Four Decade Long Rent Dispute
The court refused to condone tenants' delay in filing appeal against order directing payment of accumulated rent of over Rs. 3 Lakhs since 1985.
After a legal battle spanning nearly four decades, the Bombay High Court brought an end to a dispute involving ten rounds of litigation between the owner of agricultural land and his tenants regarding payment of accumulated rent of Rs. Rs. 3,15,250. Justice Sandeep V Marne refused to condone a delay of over one and a half years by the tenants in filing an appeal against the Tehsildar’s...
After a legal battle spanning nearly four decades, the Bombay High Court brought an end to a dispute involving ten rounds of litigation between the owner of agricultural land and his tenants regarding payment of accumulated rent of Rs. Rs. 3,15,250.
Justice Sandeep V Marne refused to condone a delay of over one and a half years by the tenants in filing an appeal against the Tehsildar’s 2018 order, which directed them to pay rent accumulated since 1985 to the landlord within three months. The court, despite acknowledging that this length of delay is typically not considered inordinate, deemed it immaterial in the present case.
"The issue is whether the landlord can be hauled in endless rounds of meritless litigations… Public policy demands that a quietus needs to be given to litigation between the parties in the present case. This is a reason why this court went into merits of the contentions that Petitioners wish to argue before SDO," the court stated.
The court noted that ordinarily, while deciding the issue of condonation of delay, it would not have gone into the merits of the case. However, the court decided to verify whether any merit exists in the tenants’ appeal before the SDO and concluded that the tenants did not have an arguable case.
The dispute revolved around a land in Village Waloli, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur. In 1985, the landowner, Appasaheb Tandale, initiated a Tenancy Case under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) to determine a reasonable rent for the land. The Tehsildar ruled the reasonable rent to be Rs. 6,379 for 1985-86. The SDO upheld this decision. The MRT, in 2016 granted the landlord's Revision Application, fixing the rent at Rs. 10,000 per year from 1985-86.
The tenants failed to pay the rent, prompting the landlord to issue a notice in 2016 terminating the tenancy with a notice of three months. The tenants failed to pay the outstanding rent even after receiving the notice. The landlord approached the Agricultural Lands Tribunal-cum-Tehsildar (ALT) seeking possession of the land.
The Tehsildar, in May 2018, directed the tenants to pay Rs. 3,15,250 in rent arrears from 1985-86 to 2017-18 within three months, failing which they would be removed from the land. The tenants neither made the payment nor challenged the ruling.
In July 2019, the Tehsildar directed the removal of the tenants from the land and handover of the land to the landlord. The tenants’ appeal before the SDO was rejected and they withdrew their revision application before the MRT.
The tenants then filed an appeal before the SDO, this time challenging the Tehsildar's decision of May 2018 directing payment of rent. A delay of one year, six months, and two days in filing the appeal was condoned by the SDO. The MRT, in November 2021, overturned the SDO's decision. Thus, the tenants filed the present writ petition challenging the MRT's order.
Advocate Manoj Patil for the petitioners contended that the tenancy could only be terminated in case of three consecutive defaults in rent payment, with a separate three-month notice in writing after each default, as per section 25(2) of the Tenancy Act.
Advocate Drupad Patil contended that the termination of tenancy under section 25(1) triggers the moment the tenant fails to pay rent to the landlord within 3 months from the date of Tehsildar’s order.
Section 14 of the Tenancy Act requires a three month notice to the tenant before termination of tenancy. Under section 25(1), after serving the termination notice, the landlord has to approach the ALT-cum-Tehsildar who has to grant opportunity to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent within three months. If the tenant fails to pay, the termination of tenancy triggers, the court noted.
Under section 25(2), the tenant doesn't have the opportunity to pay the default when tenancy is terminated for non-payment of rent for 3 years, and the landlord gives notice to the tenant within three months of each default. Upon service of the notice of default for the third year, tenancy stands automatically terminated, the court noted.
The court emphasized that the landlord has the option to proceed under either section 25(1) or section 25(2) against a defaulting tenant.
The landlord issued notice of three months to the tenant and filed proceedings for ejectment, satisfying section 14(1)(b) as well as section 25(1) of the Tenancy Act, the court noted. The landlord need not have given three notices within three months of each default since he was not opting for termination of tenancy under section 25(2), the court held. The court observed that the failure of the tenants to clear the rent arrears triggered the deeming fiction of tenancy termination.
The court found the petitioner's reason for the delay, i.e., their old age, insufficient as the tenants “were challenging the order passed in the execution proceedings before the SDO and MRT during the period of delay.”
The court noted that the delay in this case might not be considered inordinate, especially when considering the tenant's potential loss of land. However, the court also emphasized the numerous rounds of litigation already undergone by the parties.
“By now there have been 10 rounds of litigations between the parties over the issue of payment of rent: (i) three rounds for fixation of quantum of rent before ALT, SDO and MRT (ii) one round before Tehsildar seeking ejectment under section 25(1) (iii) three rounds for seeking recovery of possession before Tehsildar, SDO and MRT. (iv) two rounds before SDO and MRT over issue of condonation of delay in challenging Tehsildar’s decision under section 25(1) and (v) one round in the form of present petition”, the court noted.
The court pointed out that condoning the delay might result in further rounds of unnecessary litigation before the SDO, MRT and later before the High Court. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 4142 of 2022
Case Title – Appasaheb Pandurang Yadav (Deceased) Through his legal heir v. Appasaheb Virupaksh Tandale