SHRIMANT PARASHURAMRAO PRANAYA PARASHURAMRAO PATVARDHAN Vs. BASAPPA NAGAPPATELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment as common, questions of fact and law arise in them. They arise out of suit numbers, O.S.Nos.16 to 20 and 33 of 1965 on the file of the Munsiff at Jamkhandi. They are directed against the decree in R.A. Nos.12 to 15, 82 and 84 of 1966. on the file of the Civil Judge at Bijapur.

(2.) The appellants in all these appeals are the landlords and the respondents are tenants in respect of agricultural lands in the Bombay Area governed by the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, at the relevant time. The landlords sued for eviction of the tenants before the Tahasildar on account of default in payment of rents. The petitions for eviction were lodged pursuant to the provisions of B.T. and A.L. Act. The orders of eviction were made against these respondents in the year 1957. Those orders not having been appealed against, became concluded as against the tenants. Before the landlords could sue out execution of such orders of eviction, the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was brought into force. Thereafter, being unable to evict the tenants, the landlords filed these suits for the recovery of mesne profits for the year 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. These suits were resisted by the tenants (respondents herein) on the specific ground that subsequent to the orders of eviction fresh tenancies came into being and they continued to pay the rents due as per the tenancy agreements, and the same having been accepted by the landlords. They also relied on the provisions of the aforesaid Act, and contended that they were liable to pay only the rents as agreed upon and not the mesne profits. Both the Courts below have accepted the defence and decreed the suits only as regards the "rents payable by the respective tenants. Aggrieved by the said decree, the landlords appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the appellants, Sri A. V. Albal, the learned Counsel, contended that having regard to the definition of 'tenant' and the provisions of S.3 of the Act, the protection that is afforded to a tenant is only against eviction. It is also contended that having regard to the passing of the orders of eviction long prior to the 'Act, any continuance in possession of the tenants would amount to trespass. They are, therefore, liable to pay mesne profits as claimed.