GANPATI BAYAJI PATIL Vs. SHRIDHAR BABAJI VIBHUTE [DEAD]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the tenant of the land in dispute which is situated in Taluka Walwa, district Sangli in the State of Maharashtra. On the Tiller's Day, i.e., 1-4-1957, the appellant was the tenant in occupation of the lands in question. The landlords as of 1-4-57 was a joint family of which the original respondent was a member. On 31-3-1958 a partition took place of the joint family and the lands in question came to the share of the original respondent.

(2.) Thereafter, the original respondent applied for a certificate under section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). It is the case of the appellant that no notice was given to him of this application under Section 88C nor was he aware of a certificate being granted under Section 88C in favour of the original respondent on 14-4-1959.

(3.) In 1962, the original respondent made an application under Section 33B for obtaining possession of the land. In these proceedings under Section 33B, the appellant challenged the bona fide requirements of the original respondent for cultivating these lands personality. During the pendency of these proceedings the original respondent died and his heirs were brought on record:as a result a fresh enquiry was required to be made about the bona fide requirements of the heirs of the respondent under Section 33 B. Before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the appellant contended that there was no valid certificate under Section 88C on the basis of which the respondent(s) could make an application under Section 33B because, on the relevant date, namely, 1-4-1957 the original respondent was not the landlord of the land in question. Only the joint family which was the landlord on the relevant date, could have applied for a certificate under Section 88C. In the absence of any such application by the joint family, the appellant's rights as on 1-4-1957 under Section 32-G cannot be now defeated by a subsequent certificate under Section 88C obtained by a person who was only a member of the joint family on the relevant date and who had subsequently acquired these lands under a partition which took place after the Tillers' Day. The Revenue Tribunals had upheld this contention. The High Court, however, in a writ petition filed by the respondents to challenge the findings of the Revenue Tribunal, held that the certificate under Section 88C cannot be examined. On the basis of this certificate, the respondents are entitled to succeed in their application under Section 33 B in the light of the findings given by the revenue authorities in their favour.