G B KASHIRSAGAR Vs. L A NARODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The view of the High court in rendering the appellant helpless in retaining his tenancy over a small piece of land admeasuring 1 acre and 38 gunthas is put to challenge in this appeal.

(2.) It transpires that the appellant was in cultivating possession of 4 acres and 38 gunthas of land under the respondent-landlord. On an application moved by the landlord under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) , the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Kopargaon passed an order on 3/5/1954 on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties whereunder 3 acres of land was surrendered to the landlord and the balance land was left to be retained by the tenant. It is beyond dispute that had the application been decided on merit, the worst that could have happened to the tenant was that he would have been made to vacate half the tenanted land. As is obvious, the tenant was worse off by the compromise and was left to retain less than half of the land to the extent of I acre 38 gunthas only. Be that as it may, the situation continued as such, when a second attempt was made by the landlord to evict the tenant under the same provision of Section 31 of the Act. This time, there again was a compromise. The land was conceded to be sugarcane land. Undeniably, different provisions of the Act apply to sugarcane lands, details of which we are not presently concerned with; except to say that the tenants of the sugarcane lands were then not evictable. Later came a notification which permitted eviction of tenants of sugarcane lands as well, provided such an endeavour did not come to clash with the provisions of S. 31-C and 31-D of the Act. Section 31-C provides that the tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination of the tenancy under Section 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide required that land for personal cultivation. Section 31-D provides that if, in consequence of the termination of the tenancy under Section 31 any part of the land leased is left with the tenant, the rent shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in proportion to the area of the land left with the tenant. The notification prompted the landlord to move again, seeking the land left with the tenant for bona fide personal cultivation. He naturally was confronted by the tenant with the bar under Section 31-C of the Act. Two courts in the Revenue hierarchy employed the bar and decided in favour of the tenant-appellant but the Land tribunal in revision at the instance of the landlord, upset those orders and the High court in a writ petition, has come to confirm the same.

(3.) The ground on which the Land tribunal and the High Court have demolished the defence available in Section 31-C is that the earlier order under Section 31, dated 3/5/1954 was, strictly speaking, not an order under Section 31 but merely a consent order or a compromise order; not an order of the kindenvisaged under Section 31-C so as to erect a bar. It is to examine that view that the parties' counsel have been heard and the relevant provisions gone into.