[Tenancy Act] Landlord's Right To Terminate Tenancy For 'Bona Fide Personal Cultivation' Extinguishes Upon Sale Of Land: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a landlord's inherited right to terminate tenancy for bona fide personal cultivation extinguishes upon the sale of the land. The Court observed that once the land is sold, the requirement of personal cultivation ceases to exist, defeating the basis of such a claim.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing writ petitions challenging a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal order that had reversed the Collector's decision granting the petitioners entitlement to the disputed property. The dispute originated from proceedings initiated by the original landlord, who had secured a Section 88C certificate under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and later sought termination of tenancy under Section 33B for personal cultivation. After the landlord's death and that of his sisters, the petitioners claimed inheritance of the right to continue the proceedings. While the Collector ruled in their favour, holding that the tenancy had ended upon confirmation of the 88C certificate, the Tribunal set aside this decision, noting that the right based on personal requirement did not survive the landlord's death, leading to the present challenge before the High Court.

The Court examined the statutory framework and noted that Section 33B permits termination of tenancy only upon demonstrating a requirement for personal cultivation. It was observed that such a requirement is linked to the person seeking termination and must be established independently. The Court noted that the original landlord's requirement came to an end upon his death, and the petitioners' claim was based on the continuation of earlier proceedings and alleged inheritance of such right.

The Court found that the petitioners had not effectively pursued the application filed in 2002 seeking continuation of the original landlord's proceedings and had not taken steps to secure its adjudication.

The Court further noted that petitioners had sold all their right, title, and interest in the subject land in 2013 on an “as is where is” basis. Subsequent transactions were also entered into, and the proceedings were being pursued through third parties. The Court held that upon such sale, the requirement of personal cultivation ceased to exist. It observed:

“The Petitioners themselves having unequivocally sold the land on an as-is-where-is basis in 2013, the foundational ingredient of Section 33B of the Act i.e. the requirement for personal cultivation, has evaporated… Having unequivocally sold the land, it would be impossible for the Petitioners to claim that they are desirous of personal cultivation of the Subject Land.”

Considering these factors, the Court held that no case was made out for interference with the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and that the basis for seeking termination of tenancy no longer survived.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of without interference, and the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was upheld.

Case Title: Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 6128 of 2024]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 186

Click Here To Read/Download Order