Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HARI SAKHARAM DHANAVATE (DEAD) BY LRS. versus A.N. PATIL TUKARANE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

Decided
14 November 1995
Judges listed
M.M. PUNCHHI, S.C. SEN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 232 · 1995 INSC 734

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The narrow point before the High Court as also before the Revenue Authorities was whether the appellant-tenant was in arrears of rent beyond 3 years and could actioi;i. be taken under Sec. 25(1) or 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?

p. 233, margin B

The distinction between the two provisions is apparent. Sec. 25(1) enables a Mamlatdar to grant relief against termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent by facilitating payment of rent on call to the tenant to pay it directly to the landlord or in Court with costs of the proceedings within 15 days from the date of the order, and on failure of which to suffer an ejectment. In contrast, Sec. 25(2) carves out an exception that if the tenant is in arrears on his failure to pay rent for any three years, the landlord has to give an intimation to that effect to the tenant within a period of 3 months of each default, and then ejectment must follow as a consequence and the remedial provisions under Sec. 25(1) cannot come to the rescue of the tenant. The finding recorded by the High Court is that the instant was a case covered under Sec. 25(2) and that the Mamlatdar could not proceed under Sec. 25(1) permitting the tenant to save the tenancy on payment of arrears of rent within 15 days of the order. The High Court has given adequate reasons to come to that view. We see no justification to alter the same.

p. 233, margin C

The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 233, margin F