VORA ISMAILBHAI SULEMANBHAI Vs. PATEL DAHYABHAI BAPUJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a certified landlord and respondent is an excluded tenant. The petitioner made an application to the Mamlatdar under sec. 32T(1) for recovering possession of the land bearing S. No. 786 admeasuring 2 acres 11 gunthas situate at village Kanjari taluka Nadiad district Kaira on the ground that he required it for bona fide personal cultivation. The petitioner sent his application by registered post addressed to the Mamlatdar of Nadiad on 30th March 1962 which was received by the office of the Mamlatdar on 31st March 1962. The application thus received in the office of the Mamlatdar was presented before the Mamlatdar on 6th April 1962 on which date it was verified by the petitioner in the presence of the Mamlatdar. The proceedings commenced upon this application were continued further and ultimately the Mamlatdar by his judgment and order dated 15th October 1963 dismissed the application on two grounds (1) that the application is barred by limitation as it was presented on 6th April 1962; and (2) that the application ought to have been personally presented by the petitioner and ought to have been verified before the Mamlatdar which having not been done the same could not be entertained. The petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 10 of 1964 to the Prant Officer Nadiad. The Prant Officer by his judgment and order dated 15th July 1965 set aside the order of the Mamlatdar dismissing the application holding that as the application was received in the office of the Mamlatdar on 31-3-62 it was within time and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar to dispose of the application in accordance with law. The Mamlatdar decided all the remaining issues and by his judgment and order dated 15th September 1965 directed that the respondent tenant should hand over possession of half the land admeasuring 1 acre 57 gunthas from the land comprised in S. No. 186 to the petitioner. The respondent preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 60 of 1966 against the aforementioned order of the Mamlatdar to the Deputy Collector Kaira who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar by his judgment dated 13th February 1967. The respondent carried the matter to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring Revision Application No. TEN. A. 245 of 1967. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 12th September 1967 allowed the revision application observing that the application initially made by the petitioner to the Mamlatdar under sec. 32T was not presented as required by sec. 7 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act 1906 and therefore it was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the revision application was allowed and the application made by the petitioner to the Mamlatdar under sec. 32T was dismissed. The petitioner then filed review application bearing No. TEN.C. 25 of 1967 but the same was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 29th March 1968. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the aforementioned two decisions of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Miss V. P. Shah learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner put forth following contentions at the hearing of this petition:-

(3.) First ground of attack is that sending of an application by registered post by the present petitioner under sec. 32T(1) of the Tenancy Act seeking possession of land for bona fide personal cultivation is proper presentation of an application as required by law. The petitioner is a certified landlord and respondent is an excluded tenant. The petitioner as certified landlord was entitled to recover possession of land leased by him or bona fide personal cultivation. In order to obtain possession of land it was incumbent upon him to terminate the tenancy of the respondent and to make an application for possession to the Mamlatdar on or before 31 March 1962. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a certified landlord and the respondent is an excluded tenant. The petitioner was desirous of recovering possession of the land leased by him to the respondent for bona fide personal cultivation. The petitioner accordingly gave notice and terminated the tenancy of respondent and then sent an application as required by sec. 32T(1) by registered post to the Mamlatdar. This application was sent on 30th March 1961 and it is well established that it was received in the office of the Mamlatdar having jurisdiction in the matter on 31st March 1961 The grievance is that sending of an application for obtaining relief under sec. 32T(1) by registered post is not proper presentation of the application and on that short ground the application is liable to be dismissed this contention has found favour with the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and having upheld this contention the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner.