Possession under a conditional mortgage does not confer tenancy rights under the Tenancy Act.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the original landowners, executed a conditional mortgage deed dated 06.04.1973 in favour of Respondent No. 4, Shanabhai Himmatbhai Parmar, for a loan of ₹3,000, with possession to be returned upon repayment

Respondent No. 4 thereafter applied under Section 70B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for declaration as a protected tenant and mutation of his name in respect of Survey Nos. 459/1, 459/2 and 379 at Village Ambada, Taluka Padra, District Vadodara

The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal declared him a protected tenant and directed mutation of his name

The landowners’ challenge before the Deputy Collector was dismissed, following which they approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed their revision and set aside the orders recognising Respondent No. 4 as tenant

The State of Gujarat challenged the Tribunal’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Respondent No. 4, the person directly affected by the Tribunal’s order, did not appear or independently challenge it despite service of notice

1. Whether possession obtained under a conditional mortgage deed, subject to restoration upon repayment of the loan, could confer tenancy or protected-tenancy rights under Section 70B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act

2. Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal correctly set aside the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector declaring Respondent No. 4 a protected tenant

3. Whether the State of Gujarat, being merely a formal party and not the person directly aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, was entitled to maintain the challenge when Respondent No. 4 had not contested the matter

The Court considered the relevant provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, particularly Section 70B concerning recognition of a person as a tenant, and the parties’ submissions regarding Sections 32(O) and 32G in the context of agricultural tenancy rights and fragmented land

The Court applied the principle that possession delivered under a conditional mortgage, with an obligation to restore possession upon repayment, does not by itself create tenancy rights in favour of the mortgagee.

The Court also relied on the evidentiary significance of continuous revenue entries showing the original owners’ names and on the principle that the person directly prejudiced by an adverse order is ordinarily the aggrieved party entitled to challenge it

The Court found that the mortgage deed was conditional and merely regulated possession during the subsistence of the loan; it did not confer any independent tenancy benefit upon Respondent No. 4

The Tribunal had considered the mortgage deed and correctly noted that the original owners’ names continued in the revenue records from 1951–52 onwards, supporting their ownership and negating the claim that mortgage possession had ripened into tenancy

The Court therefore held that physical possession obtained under the mortgage could not, without more, establish protected-tenancy status under Section 70B.

The Court further observed that Respondent No. 4 was the person directly aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order but had neither appeared nor challenged it, whereas the State was only a formal party

Consequently, no ground for interference with the Tribunal’s reasoned order under Articles 226 or 227 was made out

It held that possession under the conditional mortgage did not confer tenancy rights and that the State’s challenge lacked merit, particularly when the directly aggrieved person had not contested the proceedings

The Special Civil Application was rejected, the Rule was discharged, and any interim relief was vacated