SIDDAPPA Vs. HANMANTHARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a tenant who is in occupation of a land Survey No.4A measuring 9 acres situate at Lad Chincholi, Aland Taluk. The respondent before me is the landlord. He filed a statement for resumption under S.14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. During the enquiry, Counsel for the tenant took number of adjournments for adducing evidence. The case, ultimately, was posted for arguments on 30-10-1968. Again it was adjourned to 11-11-1968 and 23-11-1968. On the last date, the Counsel reported no instructions to the Tribunal and he was permitted to retire. The order permitting resumption of the entire land was passed by the Land Tribunal on 28-11-1968 holding that the land was required by the landlord for his bona fide personal cultivation.

(2.) In the appeal preferred by the tenant before the District Judge, Gulbarga, it was contended on his behalf that the landlord does not require the land for his bona fide personal cultivation, that the income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to resume is not the principal source of income for the maintenance and that there was no adequate opportunity afforded to him for adducing evidence.

(3.) The learned District Judge rejected all the contentions and dismissed the appeal. On the last contention he held that the tenant had ample opportunity to lead evidence and his conduct disentitled him to give any more opportunity. On the first contention he held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and the land was required by him for his personal cultivation. On the second contention he said that it was not necessary for the landlord to prove that the income of the land sought to be resumed is the principal source of income by reason of the provisions of S.44(3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (briefly, "the Hyderabad Tenancy Act"). The correctness of this decision is mainly qustioned in the revision petition.