HARSADRAI RAGHANATHJI DESAI Vs. PARAGJI HIRABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The only contention urged by the petitioner is that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Revenue Tribunal confirming the decision of the Tenancy Mamlatdar in Tenancy Case No. 244/53-54 and the order in appeal dismissing the appeal from the decision of the Tenancy Mamlatdar. The Revenue Tribunal held that the Tenancy Mamlatdar was right in his decision that opponent No. 1 was a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the land S. No. 228 in village Kabilpore Taluka Navsari consisting of a bungalow 150 mango trees 100 coconut trees and a well. There was a registered agreement between the parties dated 21-6-1949 and after considering the terms of this agreement and drawing the presumption under sec. 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 the Tenancy Mamlatdar held that the relationship between the parties was one of landlord and tenant. This decision was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Collector Navsari and also in revision by the Revenue Tribunal of Gujarat and the only contention urged before us is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Revenue Tribunal confirming the construction of the document as a lease.

(3.) It is contended that the document recites at various places that it is a licence that the property in question was given to opponent No. 1 for management that the document does not create any interest in immovable property and that by construing the document which is a licence as a lease the authorities below committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record.