RAJENDRA RAMNOKAR PANDEY Vs. JAWAHAR KANTILAL VAKHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 20/07/2009 in Revision Application No. TEN/BA33/2006 by which the learned tribunal has dismissed the said Revision Application preferred by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Choryasi Prant, Surat dated 27/04/2006 in Tenancy Appeal Nos. 5/2003 and 14/2003 by which the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat has allowed the said appeals preferred by the private respondents and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Choryasi dated 24/010/2002 by which the Mamlatdar & ALT declared the tenant as deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as The Bombay Tenancy Act).

(2.) The petitioner approached the Mamlatdar & ALT, Choryasi Prant to declare him as tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act by way of Tenancy Case No. 22/1979 alleging inter alia that the petitioner was cultivating the land in question since 1985-1986 and the private respondents-original landlord were not cultivating the land in question and, therefore, he has become the deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The private respondents-landlord disputed the claim of the petitioner that he was cultivating the land in question and it was the specific case on behalf of the private respondents-landlords that the petitioner was a watchman and he was not personally cultivating the land in question. It was also the specific case on behalf of the private respondents-landlords that they were cultivating the land personally. Documentary as well as oral evidences, were led before the Mamlatdar & ALT by the respective parties and ultimately vide order dated 24/10/2002 the Mamlatdar & ALT held that the private respondents-landlords have failed to prove that the petitioner was a watchman. Consequently, the Mamlatdar & ALT declared the tenant as deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Choryasi dated 24/10/2002 in Tenancy Case No. 22/1997, the private respondents-landlords preferred appeals before the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat, being Tenancy Appeal Nos. 5/2003 and 14/2003. The Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat vide common order dated 27/04/2006 allowed the aforesaid appeals and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 24/10/2002 declaring the petitioner as deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common order dated 27/04/2006 in Tenancy Appeal Nos. 5/2003 and 14/2003 passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat, the petitioner preferred Revision Application before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, being Revision Application No. TEN/BA33/2006 and by impugned judgement and order dated 20/07/2009, the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat dated 27/04/2006 in Tenancy Appeal Nos. 5/2003 and 14/2003. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat as well as the order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mrs. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the orders passed by both the Courts below, i.e.the Deputy Collector and the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in not declaring the petitioner as deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, are absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, more particularly, Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It is submitted that both the authorities below have misinterpreted the provisions of Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act in not declaring the petitioner as deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.