DHAN SINGH RAMKRISHNA CHAUDHARI Vs. LAXMINARAYAN RAMKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal in directed against the judgment and order, dated the 10/08/1970, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

(2.) APPELLANTS are heirs of one Ramkrishna Khandu Chaudhari who was a protected tenant of the suit lands belonging to Respondent No. 1. The landlord made an application against the tenant in the Court of Extra Aval Karkum for possession of the suit lands under S. 29 read with Sections 14 and 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the tenant had committed defaults in payment of the rents for the years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56. The Aval Karkun who tried the application, found that the annual rent of the lands payable by the tenant had paid Rs. 1045/12.00 towards the rent of these three years. He held that the appellants were not willful defaulters and granted them under S. 25 (1) three months' time to pay the arrears of rent. He however refused to pass any order for payment of the subsequent rent. The tenant did not appeal against this order. But the landlord preferred an appeal to the District Deputy Collector, Jalgaon who on 30/09/1961 allowed the appeal set aside the order of the Aval Karkun and remanded the case for finding out the exact amount of the arrears up to the date of the order and decreeing the claim accordingly. The landlord preferred a Revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which allowed the same by its order, dated 4/09/1962, and remanded the case to be examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Raja, Ram v. Aba Maruti, (1962) Supp 1 SCR 739 = ( AIR 1962 SC 753) and in some High Court judgments. It further directed that the District Deputy Collector might allow the parties to lead additional evidence, if he thought it necessary.

(3.) THE Division Bench decided this question against the tenants and dismissed their writ petition. THE High Court granted a certificate under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution that the case was fit for appeal to this Court: