### Statutory Formalities Under Section 19 are Mandatory to Establish Valid Surrender of Protected Tenancy RIGHTS

One Babu Laxman Shinde was declared a protected tenant of the land on July 1, 1952, under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950

Shinde died issueless after executing a registered Will on November 3, 1979, in favor of the Petitioners' father

The Petitioners sought a declaration of ownership, which the Tahsildar granted

the Respondents (landowners) contested this, claiming Shinde had surrendered his tenancy in 1957, as evidenced by "bedakhal" (evicted/surrendered) entries in revenue records like the Khasra Pahani Patrak

The Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) set aside the Tahsildar’s order, accepting the surrender claim based on revenue entries

Section 19 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which mandates that a surrender of tenancy must be in writing and verified by the Tahsildar to ensure it is voluntary and made in good faith

Rule 7 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1958, which prescribes the specific procedure for the Tahsildar to examine the tenant on oath before accepting a surrender

Section 40 of the Act was applied, which establishes that the rights of a tenant are heritable and devolve upon heirs or those entitled to succeed to the estate upon the tenant’s death

The Court observed that a protected tenant status, once conferred, cannot be negated without a lawful surrender

It found that the Respondents failed to produce any written document or evidence of an inquiry by the Tahsildar as required by Section 19 and Rule 7

The Court held that mere revenue entries or "bedakhal" remarks in the Khasra Pahani Patrak do not constitute a legal surrender, as statutory formalities are mandatory and must be strictly followed

Regarding heritability, the Court noted that Shinde died issueless and the Petitioners, though sister's sons, were successors to his estate via the 1979 Will

Under Section 40, because the tenancy is a heritable right, the Petitioners were entitled to continue the tenancy on the same terms as the deceased

The Deputy Collector and MRT erred by prioritizing revenue entries over mandatory statutory protections

The High Court quashed and set aside the orders of the MRT (dated 23.02.2022) and the Deputy Collector (dated 29.07.2017), thereby restoring the Tahsildar’s order (dated 29.03.2016) in favor of the Petitioners. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs