L J KRIPLANI Vs. MANIK ADITWAR PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27-2-1986 in Revision Application No. 171 of 1984.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor Shri L. J. Kriplani purchased the suit lands bearing S. Nos. 96/7, 96/12 and 96/4 situated at Majiwade, Taluka Thane sometime in the year 1950. Whereas the respondents are the successors in interest of one Shri Aditwar Patil who was in possession of the suit lands as tenant. The respondents initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for determining the purchase price in respect of the suit lands, being the deemed purchasers on the tillers day i. e. 1-4-1957. The said proceedings were initiated before the Addl. Tahsildar and A. L. T. Thane. The Tahsildar after considering the materials on record took the view that the respondents have failed to establish that they were tenants in respect of the suit lands on the tillers day. In the circumstances the Tahsildar, by his order dated 6-1-1981, was pleased to drop the proceedings under section 32-G. Against the said decision the respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, being Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1982. The Appellate Authority after re-evaluation of the material on record and taking into account all the relevant mutation entries proceeded to hold that the said Aditwar and his wife Smt. Mathurabai were tenants in respect of the suit lands on the tillers day and thus the respondents being the heirs of the said Shri Aditwar were entitled to be declared as tenants and deemed purchasers in respect of the suit lands. This order was taken exception to by the petitioners by filing revision application before the Tribunal at Bombay being Revision Application No. 171 of 1984. The Tribunal on re-examination of the materials on record affirmed the finding arrived at by the Appellate Court and was thus pleased to dismiss the revision application.

(3.) THE petitioners have challenged the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in this petition. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner mainly argued two points before this Court. According to him the tenant ought to have initiated 32-G proceedings within a reasonable time, though no limitation has been provided therefor. The second point which was pressed into service was that the Appellate Court and the Tribunal committed an error holding that the respondents were tenants merely on the basis of mutation entries, that too when the said entries have been certified without notice to the petitioner. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that the first point is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Uttam Namdeo Mahale v. Vithal Deo and others), 1998 (1) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)786 : 1997 (6) S. C. C. 73 : 1997 (5) Supreme 578. In so far as the second point is concerned it is contended on behalf of the respondents that whether the respondents were tenants or not is a pure question of fact and the same has been rightly concluded by the Appellate Court as well as the Tribunal, which conclusion does not warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.