RANCHHODBHAI DAHYABHAI BARAIYA Vs. HASMUKHLAL PRANJIVANDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 30th August, 1979 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A.1220 of 1978 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned decision, the Tribunal upset the common order passed by the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeal) at Kheda (The Appellate authority for convenience) on 17th September 1978 in Tenancy Appeals Nos. 353 and 335 of 1977-78. By his aforesaid order, the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Khambhat (the first authority for convenience) on 28th October, 1976 in Tenancy Case No. 12 of 1969. By his aforsaid order, the first authority partly accepted the application made by present respondent No. 1 under Sec. 32-T read with Secs. 31 and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for brief) and awarded to him the possession of half the northern portion of survey No. 523 admeasuring 2 acres situated in village Khambhat, district Kheda (the disputed land for convenience).

(2.) This litigation has a somewhat chequered history. The petitioner was the tenant of the disputed land. It originally belonged to the father of respondent No.1 herein. The original land-holder appears to have breathed his last prior to 1st January, 1952. He was survived by his three sons including respondent No. 1 herein. The names of the three brothers including present respondent No. 1 were, therefore, mutated in the revenue records with respect to the disputed land as its occupants. According to respondent No. 1 the properties left behind by his deceased father were partitioned amongst the three brothers and the disputed land came to his share and he became its sole occupant. The necessary entry in the revenue record in that regard was posted on 25th January, 1958. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. It appears that as its sole occupant he applied for an exemption certificate under Sec. 88-C of the Act. He was granted the necessary certificate thereunder. He thus became a certified landlord as is commonly known in the tenancy law parlance. I shall hereinafter refer to him as the landlord for convenience. He appears to have made his application for possession of the disputed land from the petitioner herein (the tenant for convenience) under Sec. 32-T read with Secs. 31 and 29 of the Act after serving to the tenant the required notice as provided under Section 32-T thereof. That proceeding came to be decided against the landlord on the ground that the notice served to the tenant was not legal and valid. The landlord failed in his appeal before the appellate authority and in his revision and review before the Tribunal. He thereupon approached this Court by means of Spl. C. A. No. 184 of 1969. That petition was accepted and the notice in question was held to be legal and valid. The matter was remanded to the first authority for restoration of the proceeding instituted by the landlord to file and for decision afresh according to law. On remand, the proceeding appears to have been renumbered as Tenancy Case No. 12 of 1969. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his order passed on 28th October 1976 in Tenancy Case No. 12 of 1969, the first authority accepted the case set up by the landlord and awarded the northern half portion of the disputed land to him. An extract of the aforesaid order is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that the aforesaid order passed by the first authority aggrieved both the landlord and the tenant. Both of them, therefore, carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal of the tenant came to be registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 335 of 1977-78 and that of the landlord as Tenancy Appeal No. 353 of 1977-78. By his common order passed on 17th September, 1978 in the aforesaid two appears, the appellate authority accepted the tenant's appeal and dismissed the landlord's appeal. The result was that the aforesaid order passed by the first authority awarding possession of the northern half portion of the disputed land to the landlord came to be quashed and set aside. A copy of the aforesaid appellate order is at Annexure-B to this petition. That obviously aggrieved the landlord. He, therefore, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 1220 of 1978. By its decision rendered on 30th August 1979, the Tribunal accepted the revisional application and set aside the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition and restored the order passed by the first authority at Annexure-C to this petition. A copy of the decision rendered by the Tribunal is at Annexure-A to this petition. That obviously aggrieved the tenant. He has thereupon knocked the doors of this Court by means of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned decision at Annexure-A to this petition.

(3.) The legality and validity of the notice given by the landlord to the tenant has already been decided by this Court in the previous proceeding between the parties. The legality and validity of the decision of the Tribunal will have, therefore, to be tested on the touchstone of Sec. 32-T(5) of the Act as rightly submitted by Kum. Shah for the petitioner. That statutory provision prescribes certain conditions for exercise of the right of a certified landlord to terminate a tenancy thereunder. The relevant clause is Clause (c) thereof. It reads :