LAWS(SC)-1992-4-18

PUNDLIK KRISHNAJI Vs. TRIMBAK BHIKAJI PATIL

Decided On April 23, 1992
PUNDLIK KRISHNAJI Appellant
V/S
TRIMBAK BHIKAJI PATIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court directing the ejectment of the appellants from three tracts of agricultural land which the appellants are in cultivating possession since 1951.

(2.) Respondent Bhikaji is the owner of about 20 acres of land subject-matter of the dispute. The said land is in cultivating possession of the appellants since 1951 and according to them, they have acquired the status of protected lessees under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Berar Act') and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Bombay Act').

(3.) The respondent Bhikaji initiated proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldana for ejectment of the appellants on the ground that predecessor of the first appellants created sub-leases in favour of second appellant and one Zipra Wanchhu and as such their tenancy was liable to be terminated in terms of S. 8(1)(c)(f) of the Berar Act. Bhikaji filed two separate applications against the appellants. The applications were resisted by the appellants inter alia on the ground that all the three persons namely Pundlik Krishna, Kesho Krishna and Zipra Wanchhu were independent lessees in their own rights and as such there was no question of Pundlik Krishnaji having created sub-leases in favour of the other two. Before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the respondent Bhikaji produced a lease deed dated April 30, 1951 to prove that all the three tracts of land were leased to late Pundlik Krishnaji and no part of the land was ever leased to Keshao Krishnaji and Zipra Wanchhu. It was sought to be shown from the lease deed that the original lessee Pundlik Krishnaji sub-leased part of the land to the other two occupants. The Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the contention of the respondent and ordered the ejectment of the appellants. The Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded on the following reasoning:-