DAHYABHAI LIMJIBHAI DECD Vs. AMARCHAND JAGJIVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-tenants challenge in this petition the order of the Revenue Tribunal dated August 10 1965 by which the Revenue Tribunal has set aside the order of the Prant Officer and has restored the order of the Mamlatdar for possession of half of the lands in question in an application under sec. 32T of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act by respondent No. 1 certified landlord. Mr. Trivedi challenges the said order of the Tribunal on the following grounds:-

(2.) As regards the first contention of Mr. Trivedi it must be kept in mind that the Prant Officer had ignored the admission made by the tenant himself that the suit lands stood in the name of respondent No. 1 certified landlord on January 1 1952 in the revenue records as Kabjedar and had continued to stand in the said records till the relevant date December 13 1960 The Prant Officer had gone on a mere conjecture that illiterate tenant might have made this admission without understanding its true import. Even the landlords evidence was to the same effect. The Tribunal had seen even the certified copy of the revenue record of the Baroda State produced before it. Therefore the Prant Officers finding being clearly a conjectural finding was perverse and it was rightly set aside by the Revenue Tribunal by holding that the relevant condition under sec. 32T of the Act was fulfilled.

(3.) As regards the second contention of Mr. Trivedi he mixes up the requirements of secs. 31 and 32T of the Act. The provisions of termination under sec. 31 of the Act can apply only when the conditions of sec. 31A are fulfilled. Sec. 31A(c) provides a further restriction that the income by the cultivation of the landlord of which he is entitled to take possession is the principal source of income for his maintenance. No such restriction is enacted by the Legislature in sec. 32T for the obvious reason that a different test is envisaged by the Legislature in this context. The right to terminate the tenancy under sec. 32T(1) of the Act and to make an application for possession is conferred only on a certified landlord who holds a certificate under sec. 88C(4) of the Act. The relevant condition for being a certified landlord under sec. 88C(1) is that the landlord of such exempted land does not hold such land more than one economic holding and the total annual income of such landlord including the rent of such land does not exceed Rs. 1500/. It is only such small holders of land who would get such a certificate of exemption under sec. 88C of the Act. That is why the Legislature did not envisage the same test as is required when the notice of termination under sec. 31 of the Act for bona fide requirement of the land for personal cultivation is given in which case alone the restriction under sec. 31A(c) has to be fulfilled. Therefore the Revenue Tribunal was right in holding that the landlords claim was a bona fide one in respect of this land for personal cultivation in the circumstances of the case. Therefore on this ground no patent error is disclosed.