DHOLIBEN VALABHAI Vs. MANSUKHBHAI BHAICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In thess two petitions a common question is involved and hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners in both these petitions claim to be the tenants of suit Survey Nos. 263 262 and 264 admeasuring 2 Acres and 22 Gunthas 5 Acres and 16 Gunthas and 1 Acre and 24 Gunthas respectively in all aggregating 9 Acres and 12 Gunthas situated in village Khambhada Taluka-Dhandhuka District-Ahmedabad. All the three Survey Nos. had been under cultivation of one Arjanbhai the ancestor of the present petitioners. The land had been under his cultivation for a long time. After his death the said land appears to be under the joint cultivation of the two sons of Arjanbhai viz. Gopalbhai and Valabhai. In the ordinary course the said tenants would have become deemed purchasers on the tillers day. But prior to that date the landlord had filed application under sec. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereafter-Tenancy Act) for possession on the ground that the landlord needed it for personal cultivation. These proceedings under sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act prolonged till they terminated by the order dated 18/11/1969 passed by this court confirming the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereafter-Tribunal) dismissing the revision application of the landlord in one matter and allowing the tenants appeal in the other. The said proceedings under sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act had the result of postponing the deemed purchase till the final rejection of the landlords application for possession. The main contention in the present two petitions is what is the date when the decision can be said to have become final on the landlords application for possession ?

(3.) Mrs. K. A. Mehta the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions has submitted that under proviso to sec. 32(1) clause (b) sub-clause (iii) of the Tenancy Act the final order of rejection could be the order dated 18/11/1969 passed by this courts whereby the decision of the Tribunal was confirmed. Mr. P. V. Nanavati the learned counsel for the respondents in both the petitions has urged that on a true construction of the aforesaid proviso the final order of rejection was the order of the Tribunal passed on 15/01/1963. The date on which the final order of rejection can be said to have been passed is of utmost importance in these two cases because it seems that the two branches one belonging to Valabhai and the other belonging to Gopalbhai are said to have undergone a division and hence whether each branch had a holding in excess of the ceiling would be materially affected. It is argued that it the decision of the Tribunal in January 1963 is held to be final then the holdings of the petitioners may exceed the ceiling limit. But if the final order of rejection is regarded as November 1969 when this court upheld the decision of the Tribunal then the petitioners may not be affected adversely by the ceiling limits.