AMBALAL VALLAVBHAI PATEL Vs. MANGALBHAI DHULABHAI BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of Survey No. 1137/3-4 and Survey No. 1138/1-2 of village Vadthal in Nadiad taluka of Kaira district. On 11th May 1958 he agreed to sell the land in question to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 2 501 The respondent paid to the petitioner Rs. 1501.00 i. e. Rs. 1 0 less than the consideration for the transaction of sale. The sale deed could not be executed because the respondents house was gutted and he could not pay the balance to the petitioner. It is the petitioners case that he thereupon returned to the respondent the amount which the latter had paid to him and took back possession of the land in question. It is the respondents case that the possession of the lands was forcibly taken by the petitioner. Under these circumstances the respondent filed the present suit before Mamlatdar Nadiad under sec. 70 (b) read with sec. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (here inafter referred to as the Tenancy Act for the sake of brevity) for a declaration that he was a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question and for recovering possession thereof from the petitioner. He also set up in that suit the plea that his tenancy commenced much earlier than the agreement of sale executed in his favour by the petitioner.

(2.) The Mamlatdar disbelieved the respondents case of anterior tenancy and held that no tenancy resulted from the agreement of sale. He therefore dismissed his suit on 30th November 1964. The respondent appealed against that order to the Deputy Collector who upheld the findings recorded by the Mamlatdar and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The respondent challenged the appellate order in a revision application which he filed before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal did not deal with the respondents plea of anterior tenancy but held that since the respondent had been cultivating lawfully the lands in question under an agreement of sale he was deemed to be the tenant in respect of the lands in question by virtue of the provisions of sec. 4 of the Tenancy Act. The Tribunal therefore allowed the revision application granted to the respondent a declaration which he sought and ordered the petitioner to deliver the possession of the 13nd in question to him.