(1.) The short question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal, by grant of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, is if a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') who surrendered the tenancy can be said to have been dispossessed so as to claim benefit under Sec. 32(1-B) of the Act
(2.) For this purpose, it is necessary to state facts in brief. A suit was filed by Respondent 1 -plaintiff (referred to as plaintiff) against Respondent 2-defendant (referred to as the defendant) and the appellant-defendant 2 (referred to as the appellant), on the allegation that a conditional mortgage was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant in 1952 after getting the land surrendered from the appellant but since the defendant was not willing to hand over possession despite offer of paying the mortgage amount, a declaration may be granted that he was the owner of the land in dispute on payment of the mortgage amount to the defendant. In the written statement filed by the defendant it was claimed that he was the owner of the land in dispute. Apart from that, one of the pleas raised was that the land in dispute was let out by him to the appellant who was in possession since then. On the pleadings one of the questions that arose was whether the appellant was the tenant of the land in dispute. Since the question of tenancy could be decided by the revenue authorities only, two issues were framed to the following effect :
(3.) Two questions arise in this appeal, one if the High Court was right, in law, in negativing claim of the appellant under Sec. 32(1-B) and other if the Tribunal in setting aside the finding on collusion in revision exceeded its jurisdiction. Out of the two it is proposed to take up legal issue on applicability of Sec. 32(1-B) as if the appellant cannot successfully assail this finding then the finding on collusion becomes academic only. Section 32(1-B) of the Act is extracted below :