Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court

“Section 4B of the Tenancy Act puts an embargo on termination of tenancy only on the ground that the tenancy has been determined by efflux of time.” — Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, Bombay High Court.

In a judgment delivered on September 11, 2024, the Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions in a long-standing land tenancy dispute involving the Yedekar family and the Sangli Municipal Council, dating back to the 1950s. The case centered on land acquisition, tenancy rights, and the applicability of Section 4B of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“Tenancy Act”), which protects tenants from eviction based solely on the expiration of lease terms.

The case pertains to agricultural land in Sangli, specifically Survey No. 99/2, which was leased to the father of the petitioner, Dadoba Yedekar, in 1942. The dispute began in 1945 when the Sangli State issued a notification for acquiring the land for a water and drainage scheme. The land was subsequently entrusted to the Sangli Municipal Council under a royal decree in 1948, forming part of a trust corpus.

Despite multiple litigations spanning decades, including civil suits, appeals, and references to tenancy tribunals, the crux of the matter involved whether the Yedekar family retained their tenancy rights over the land under the Tenancy Act, especially after the municipal council terminated the tenancy in 1956. In 1958, a compromise decree was reached, allowing Dadoba to retain tenancy until 1964.

However, the matter became complex after the enactment of Section 4B of the Tenancy Act, which prohibits the termination of tenancy due to the expiration of a lease period. The Sangli Municipal Council continued efforts to reclaim the land, while the petitioners argued that they remained protected tenants under Section 4B, despite a development plan approved by the government in 1977 that reserved the land for non-agricultural purposes.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected the petitioners’ claim that Section 4B protected their tenancy, ruling that the provision does not apply when the land is exempted under Section 88(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act. This section exempts land reserved for public purposes, such as development schemes, from the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The court upheld the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s (MRT) finding that the petitioners no longer had tenancy rights after the land was reserved for non-agricultural development in 1977.

Applicability of Section 4B: The court clarified that while Section 4B protects tenants from eviction due to the expiration of lease terms, it does not apply when the land is exempted from the Tenancy Act under Section 88(1)(b). The exemption was triggered when the government sanctioned a development plan for the land in 1977.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: The court also held that the petitioners could not challenge the reference of the tenancy issue to the revenue authorities, as they had participated in the proceedings and failed to contest the 1971 order that directed the reference.

Public Interest and Delay: The court noted that the land in question is now part of a public bus depot and that the delay in filing the writ petition in 2017—more than 20 years after the MRT’s decision in 1989—further weakened the petitioners’ case.

The court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the petitioners could no longer claim tenancy rights over the disputed land. However, the court granted the petitioners a temporary extension of the interim relief that had been in place, allowing them eight more weeks before the final order takes effect.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024

Shri Balkrishna Dadoba Yedekar & Ors. v. Sangli Municipal Council