PARAPPA Vs. SIDDAPPA BASAPPA SOMANKOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Parappa died leaving behind him two wives Basawa and Basavannewa and an adopted son also named Parappa. Basavannewa died in the year 1933-34 while Basawa died on May 22, 1959. When Basawa was alive, Parappa, the adopted son, had executed a deed of maintenance dated July 30, 1927 in her favour giving her certain land to be enjoyed by her during her life time. She inducted the defendant as her tenant. After the death of Basawa, the plaintiff, Parappa called upon the defendant to deliver possession of the land and on his refusal to do so instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he was a tenant and that he was not liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The plea of, the defendant was accepted by all the three courts below and the plaintiff has come up in appeal to this court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The submission of Shri R. B. Datar, learned counsel for the appellant was that under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, a widow was deemed to cultivate the land personally, even if such land was cultivated through tenants and therefore, a person who was inducted as a tenant by a widow could acquire no rights under the Act so as to defeat the claims of the person succeeding the widow to the land. Having considered the several provisions of the Act, we find no force in this submission. Section 2(6) of the Act defines the expression "to cultivate personally". Explanation 1 to sec. 2(6) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant states :

(2.) The scheme of these provisions of the Act make it abundantly clear that while a widow could lease out the land and yet be considered to cultivate the land personally, her successor-in-title, if he desired to cultivate the land personally, had to take appropriate action under sec. 31 by giving, notice to the tenant and by filing an application to the Mamlatdar within one year from the date of the death of the widow. Admittedly that has not been done in the present case. No action as provided by sec. 31 was taken at all. No notice intimating the tenant that the land was required for personal cultivation of the landlord was given to the tenant and no application was made to the Mamlatdar. The suit for possession was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. If the plaintiff-landlord possesses any other rights under any other law for the time being, he is at liberty to pursue such remedy as he chooses to.