DAHYAJI KALAJI PARMAR Vs. DAHIBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises a question of some importance and interest relating to the interpretation of section 88C(5) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act which rules that the decision of the Mamlatdar....subject to appeal to the Collector shall be final and the controversy is whether any such decision is subject to correction by the Revenue Tribunal under the powers of revision conferred on it by section 76 of the Act. The petitioner is the tenant of the parcel of land of which opponent No. 1 is the owner. Opponent No. 1 applied to the Mamlatdar for obtaining a certificate under section 88C on the ground that her income was below Rs. 1500.00. Sec. 88C grants an exemption from certain provisions of the Act to lands leased by persons whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 1500.00. Two conditions are postulated by that section before any such exemption can be granted. Firstly the land must not exceed an economic holding and secondly the total annual income of the person who has leased out the land including the rent of such land must not exceed Rs. 1500.00. One of the contentions sought to be urged before us on behalf of the petitioner relates to the aspect of economic holding but we have not allowed it to be raised since it was not urged or even indicated before the Tribunal. The other contention which was raised in the Courts below and before the Revenue Tribunal relates to the condition about annual income of the lessor and in our judgment there is substance in that contention.

(2.) The application of opponent No. 1 for a certificate under section 88 was dismissed by the Mamlatdar as he was of the view that income of the opponent to be taken into consideration exceed Rs. 1500.00. An appeal to the Deputy Collector by the lessor-owner was dismissed. She carried the matter in revision to the Revenue Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal reversed the decisions of the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar on the ground that in computing the amount of Rs. 1500/the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar had taken into consideration the income of opponent No. 1 as well as of her son on the ground that they were members of a joint Hindu family. The Tribunal pointed out in its judgment that no such plea had been raised by the tenant and the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar were in error in holding that the income of the lessor-owner exceeded Rs. 1500.00.

(3.) In the present petition befo0re us the petitioner has raised a contention of bar in limine which had not been urged before the Tribunal and the contention is that the Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to exercise its power of revision in a matter determined under sec. 88C. It will be convenient to set out here the provisions of that section 88 c:-