Brother Cultivating Widowed Sister's Land Is 'Family Member', Not 'Deemed Tenant' Under Maharashtra Tenancy Act: High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that where a brother cultivates agricultural land belonging to his widowed sister, such cultivation would fall within the category of a “family member” and not give rise to a deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Court observed that permissive cultivation by a close family member, particularly in the context of a widow, does not create tenancy rights in the absence of clear evidence of intention to create a tenancy.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a writ petition challenging concurrent orders of the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), which had rejected the tenancy claim of the petitioners' predecessor over certain agricultural lands. The dispute arose between two brothers over lands originally owned by their sister, who had become a widow and later adopted one brother as her son. The petitioners claimed that the non-adopted brother was a deemed tenant entitled to purchase the lands under the Tenancy Act.

The Court examined the statutory scheme of Section 4, which creates a deeming fiction of tenancy where a person lawfully cultivates another's land, but expressly excludes members of the owner's family from such presumption. It held that the legislative intent was to prevent relatives from taking advantage of mere permissive possession to assert tenancy rights.

“… it is possible that a sister inducts her real brother as a tenant to cultivate the land. However in such circumstance, the brother must produce proof of creation of tenancy in the form of tenancy agreement or rent receipts. A real brother cannot be permitted to take advantage of mere possession or cultivation for setting up a tenancy claim against his own sister,” the Court observed.

The Court found that Parvatibai had become a widow after the death of her husband and son, and in such circumstances, it was natural for her to permit her brother to assist in the cultivation of her lands. It held that such an arrangement does not indicate an intention to create tenancy.

The Court observed that in the specific factual context, the brother could be treated as a “family member” for the purposes of Section 4(1)(a), especially considering the widow had lost her son. It rejected the contention that the term “family” should be narrowly confined only to husband, wife, and children.

Hence, the Court held that the brother, being a member of the family of the widow, cannot be treated as a deemed tenant in respect of any of the lands under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act.

The Court also noted that in respect of certain lands, there was no evidence of cultivation by Kashinath as on the tiller's day, and in respect of lands retained by the widow, statutory restrictions under Section 32F further negated the claim of purchase rights.

Holding that the tenancy claim was rightly rejected by all authorities and that no perversity was shown in their findings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Late Kashinath Shivram Bharati v. Laxman Gyanba Bharati & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 1250 of 2020]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)152

Click Here To Read/Download Order