Land Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Extinguished Without Following Due Process

The MRT erred in negating the tenancy rights solely on the basis of statements made by some legal heirs regarding possession, overlooking the petitioners’ rights and the mandatory requirements of Sections 15 and 29 of the MTAL Act, 1948.

Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Defeated on Statements of Some Co-Heirs of Tenant under MLRT Act

Extinguishment of Tenancy Rights Erroneous Without Hearing Recorded Legal Heirs of the Tenant.

Tenancy Rights of Recorded Legal Heirs Cannot Be Extinguished Without Their Impleadment and Compliance with Sections 15 and 29 of the MTAL Act

Deletion of Tenancy Rights in the Land In breach of Sections 15 and 29 of MLRT Act Unsustainable

Maltibai was the original holder of the land and predecessor-in-title of the respondent nos.1 to 4.

Dunda Karbhari, grand father of the petitioners, was the tenant with other co-tenants of the said land as per the entries in the record of rights since 1954 and mutation entry no.80 dated 27.9.1956.  After the death of Dunda on 7.1.1971, the names of his widow Anandibai and five children including Lilabai were mutated in the record of rights.  Lilabai was the mother of the petitioners and their brothers – respondent nos.5 and 6.

After the demise of Anandibai on 12.4.1985, the names of her children including Lilabai were recorded.

After the death of Lilabai on 5.10.1999 the names of the petitioners, respondent nos.5 and 6 were mutated.

On 20.5.2011, the respondent nos.1 to 4 had executed sale deed.  On the basis of said sale and Power of Attorney, Mukund and Mukul Patel had filed number of applications including Tenancy case before ALT for declaration in respect of tenancy and for deletion of the names of tenants. However, the petitioners were not impleaded.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid clear and explicit enunciation of the legal position, and the express mandate of the provisions contained in sections 15 and 29 of the MT and AL Act, 1948, the learned President, MRT was not at all justified in recording the finding on the basis of the statements of the other legal heirs of Dunda Karbhari that they were not in possession of the subject land.

Judgment dated 28.9.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.6061 of 2025 of Shobha @Surekha Suresh Patil  and another   Vs.  Radhika Prakash Borgaonkar and others