RASHIKLAL BHAGWATLAL DAVE Vs. LAIKS UMED BHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short and interesting question that arises for our determination on this petition is whether after reformation in situ of land affected by dilution a person who is a protected tenant under the Tenancy Act of 1948 can assert a right in the land which has reformed.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to this petition are not now in dispute and not disputable. Petitioner No. 4 is the owner of land admeasuring 23 acres and 5 gunthas out of which 2 acres and 22 gunthas were let out to respondent No. 1 who it is common ground became a protected tenant of that land. That land the subject matter of the tenancy was sub-merged in river Narmada in the year 1947-48 and re-appeared in August 1955. Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed a tenancy suit in the Court of the Mamlatdar which suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector who reversed the decision of the Mamlatdar and held that the tenancy suit was within the time prescribed by the law of limitation. The landlords carried the matter to the revenue Tribunal which rejected the revision application. The only question raised by the landlord in the revision application was the one relating to limitation. It was however argued on his behalf before the Tribunal that when the land was submerged the tenancy came to an end and on re-emergence of it the landlord became entitled to it without any obligation to respondent No. 1 who had been a protected tenant. The Tribunal expressed the view that since opponent was a tenant admittedly when the suit land was submerged he continued to be tenant on its re-emergence. It disallowed the contention of the landlord that the tenancy became terminated on submergence of the land and the landlord has now come to this Court on this petition.

(3.) It has been argued before us by Mr. I.C. Bhatt learned advocated for the petitioners that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the contention of the landlord that the tenant ceased to be such when the land was submerged. It is said that after any land is submerged by any act of nature like flood the tenant loses his right in the land. It has been strenuously urged before us that in any such case as soon as the land is submerged the relationship of landlord tenant ceases to subsist. We are unable to subscribe to any such proposition. In India the general rule in case of diluvion seems to us to be fairly well settled and in favour of the tenant. Our attention has been drawn to a number of reported cases relating to proportionate abatement of rent in case of diluvion but these cases have remote bearing on the principle with which we are concerned in this case and do not afford any particular assistance or guidance in the matter.