MOTIBHAI TRIKAMBHAI Vs. CHHOTALAL MANGALBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner is the landlord and respondents 1 and 2 are the tenants. The land let by the petitioner consists of survey No. 424 situate in Anand village admeasuring one acre and eight gunthas. The land was originally let to Mangalbhai Haribhai the father of the 1st respondent and husband of the second respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 are the heirs of the said Mangalbhai. Mangalbhai did not pay the rent in respect of the said land for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 amounting to Rs. 48/The petitioner thereupon gave the requisite notice of termination of the tenancy of Mangalbhai and filed an application for possession of the land in the Court of the Tenancy Mahalkari at Anand. On 17th December 1958 the Tenancy Aval Karkun passed an order directing Mangalbhai to pay the amount of the arrears of rent being Rs. 48/and 50 naya paises by way of costs. He further directed that the amount should be paid within three months from the date of the receipt of the order and further directed that on failure of payment of the aforesaid amount within the prescribed time the petitioner should apply for obtaining possession of the land. Mangalbhai (ailed to pay the amount of the rent within the time provided by the order. Thereupon the petitioner made an application for possession of the land. When the matter came up for hearing once again on 22nd August 1959 Mangalbhai paid the sum of Rs. 48/and 50 naye paise being the amount of the arrears of rent and costs. The petitioner accepted the amount under protest. The Tenancy Aval Karkun thereupon passed an order that the application of the petitioner for possession should merely be filed. An appeal was preferred from the said decision At the time when the matter was heard by the District Deputy Collector the heirs of Mangalbhai had come on the scene Mangalbhai having died. That appeal was dismissed and the order of the Tenancy Aval Karkun was upheld. The petitioner thereupon filed an application in revision before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal held that there was no error either in the order passed by the Tenancy Court or by the District Deputy Collector and the application was dismissed. The petitioner has thereupon come before us.

(2.) The main contention urged by Mr. V. J. Desai the learned Advocate for the petitioner before us is that Mangalbhai having failed to pay the rent within the time prescribed by the order dated 17th December 1958 passed by the Tenancy Aval Karkun the petitioner was entitled to obtain possession of the land and that the Tenancy Aval Karkun was not entitled to consider any amount paid subsequent to the period provided by the order dated 17th December 1958 as being a payment which would result in the restoration of the tenancy. He relied upon various provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Section 14 of the said Act deals with the termination of Tenancy. By sub-section (1) thereof it is provided as under :

(3.) The conditions laid down in this section for the termination of the tenancy have been fulfilled in the present case. Reference then is made to section 25. That section provides as under :