WAMAN DHULAJI RAJPUT Vs. UMABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Umabai-hereinafter called 'the plaintiff'-was the tenure-holder of a three-fourth share in Survey No. 17 of village Utrada in taluq Chikhli, district Buldana. Waman was the tenant of that land. The plaintiff served a notice under Sec. 38(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 99 of 1958, calling upon the tenant to deliver possession of the land on the ground that she required the land for personal cultivation, and applied to the Tahsildar for an order in that behalf. This application was granted by the Tahsildar, but the order was set aside in appeal and the case was remanded sometime in June 1963. In the meanwhile the plaintiff served notices on the tenant in respect of each of the three years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 that he had committed default in payment of rent accruing due respectively on March 31, 1960, March 31, 1961 and March 31, 1962. By the second and third notices the plaintiff informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the tenancy and furnished particulars of the grounds on which termination was claimed. By the last notice the tenant was called upon to pay rent for three years and he was informed that in default of payment the tenancy will stand terminated after three months. The tenant failed to remedy the breach.

(2.) On March 27, 1963 the plaintiff applied to the Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar under Sec. 19(2) read with Sec. 30(2) and Sec. 36(2) for an order determining the tenancy, and permitting the plaintiff to take possession. The tenant pleaded that he had acquired ownership of the land under Sec. 46(1) as from April 1, 1961, and on that account the application was not maintainable. The Tahsildar by his order directed the tenant to pay Rs. 232-50 within three months and declared that in default the tenancy will stand determined. The tenant did not carry out the direction of the Tahsildar. The plaintiff appealed against the order of the Tahsildar to the Sub-Divisional Officer who allowed the appeal holding that the tenancy stood determined before title to the land vested in the tenant under Sec. 46(1) of the Act. But the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exercising powers in revision set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the view of the Revenue Tribunal the claim made by the plaintiff was 'rendered untenable' because by virtue of Sec. 46(1) of the Act the tenant had become a statutory owner of the land in his possession on and with effect from April 1, 1961, and the relation of landlord and tenant stood extinguished by operation of law on and from April 1, 1961.

(3.) The plaintiff then moved a petition in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal and restored the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The High Court held that the tenant had not become the owner of the land and the relation of landlord and tenant was subsisting on March 27, 1963. The tenant appeals to this Court with special leave.