PIRSAHABMIYA MOHMEDMIYA Vs. SOMABHAI HARIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these connected matters the petitioner and contesting respondent are same and both have been ordered to be heard together. The petitioner in both the matters is original plaintiff-landlord and the respondent is original defendant-tenant of agricultural suit land.

(2.) In a proceeding under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) an order was passed by the Mamlatdar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal on 23rd August 1962 that the tenants Haribhai Bhikhabhai and his son Somabhai Haribhai were not willing to purchase the land held by them as tenants. It is submitted that notice was issued only to Haribhai as tenant and Somabhai was merely examined as a witness. Under Section 32-G not only the tenants and landlords but also all other persons interested in the land are entitled to appear before the tribunal. It appears that the tribunal recorded statements of the tenants that they were not willing to purchase the land and therefore the purchase had become ineffective. The order is at Annexure `A to the petition. The order observes that the petitioner stated that the land was taken back from Haribhai about seven years back and the suit land was being cultivated by Somabhai Haribhai on rent and he used to pay the rent in cash and a tobacco licence was also taken in the name of Somabhai. Somabhai also stated that he was cultivating the land and the licence was taken in his name. It is also observed that the petitioner landlord had stated that the rent was paid in cash whereas Somabhai stated that he was working free. From the deposition the tribunal held that the suit land was being cultivated by the father and the son as tenants and since they were not willing to purchase the land purchase was declared ineffective.

(3.) In pursuance of the above order it appears that further proceedings were taken under Section 32 The suit land was required to be disposed of by the Collector. Section 32-P (when the order was passed on 8-5-1963) provided that where the purchase of any land by tenant under Section 32 becomes ineffective under Section 32-G land is required to be disposed of by the Collector after holding an enquiry and directing its disposal. Sub-section 2 provided that such direction shall provide that the tenancy in respect of the land shall be terminated and the tenant be summarily evicted and that the land shall be surrendered to the landlord subject to the provisions of Section 50 From the order which is produced at pages 22 to 24 of the paper book it appears that the notice was issued to Haribhai Bhikhabhai and in his absence ex-parte order was passed. The order states that the tenant had returned the land to the landlord 5 to 7 years back and therefore he had refused to purchase the land and that since the land is already returned to the landlord the right of the tenant is extinguished and therefore there was no question of yield to him from the land. It was further observed that the landlord himself was cultivating land and since the landlord was personally cultivating the land his prayer for disposal of the land in his favour was considered reasonable and he was held entitled to the suit land. The additional Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal ordered that the tenancy of the tenant was terminated and the land was ordered to be given to the landlord for personal cultivation.