LATE KASHINATH SHIVRAM BHARATI @ GOSAVI THRU LHRS v. LAXMAN GYANBA BHARATI @ GIRI AND ORS
Exclusion of Family Members from Deemed Tenancy and the Requirement of Express Proof for Tenancy Claims by Relatives under the Tenancy Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:14640
Decision Date: 26-03-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; Constitution of India, Article 227; Deemed Tenancy Principles; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (contextual)
- Facts: The suit lands were originally owned by Shankar Kisangir Gosavi, who died in 1931, followed by his son Dattu in 1934, leaving his widow, Parvatibai, as the sole owner. In 1945, Parvatibai adopted her brother Gyanba (renamed Raghunath), who became her legal heir. Parvatibai's other brother, Kashinath (the Petitioner's predecessor), claimed tenancy rights over the lands, alleging cultivation as of the 'tiller's day' on 1 April 1957. Kashinath first staked this claim in 1993. While the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) initially accepted the claim in 2002, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) later remanded the matter. In the remanded proceedings, the ALT, SDO, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) concurrently rejected the tenancy claim, finding that as a family member of a widow, Kashinath could not be a 'deemed tenant' without proof of an express tenancy agreement.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners challenged the judgment of the MRT dated 30 December 2019, which had confirmed the orders of the SDO and ALT rejecting the tenancy claim. The matter reached the Bombay High Court via a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Whether a brother cultivating the land of his sister (a widow) can be considered a 'deemed tenant' under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, and whether the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities warranted interference under Article 227.
- Holding: No, the brother cannot be treated as a deemed tenant in this context; and no, the concurrent findings did not warrant interference.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 4 of the Tenancy Act creates a deeming fiction of tenancy but specifically excludes "members of the owner's family". In the case of a widow, it is natural for a brother to assist in cultivation without an intent to create a tenancy. The Court held that a family member permitted to cultivate land must produce independent evidence of an agreement or rent receipts to claim tenancy; they cannot rely on the deeming fiction. Furthermore, for some Gat numbers, there was no evidence of cultivation on the tiller's day, and for others, Section 32F applied because Parvatibai was a widow, protecting her ownership. The Court also emphasized that under Article 227, it does not act as a court of appeal to reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse.
🔒 For Members Only