SULUBAI Vs. KERBA BIVAJI SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard counsel on both sides and perused the records, we are of the view that the High court was justified in remanding the case. However, it is unnecessary that the case should be reconsidered by the Deputy Collector who is the first appellate authority. In our view it would be sufficient if the case is remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration of the two questions.

(2.) It is admitted by the appellant-landlord that the respondent was in possession of the disputed property from 1966 until May 1969. According to the respondent, his possession was as a tenant, whereas, according tothe appellant-landlord, the respondent was not a tenant and his possession was in some other capacity. Whichever way the respondent came into possession of the land, the fact is that he was dispossessed only in May 1969.

(3.) Two questions arise from this admitted fact. The fundamental question is as to the nature of the admitted possession of the respondent over the land in question until May 1969. The tribunal has to consider the question on the basis of the evidence and come to a conclusion as to whether or not the respondent, as claimed by him, was a tenant in possession during the aforesaid period in respect of the land. If the tribunal decides that the respondent was a tenant in possession until May 1969, another question which must necessarily arise is as regards limitation and the applicability of S. 32 (1 of the Haryana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.