BABU BALA DINDE Vs. SHIVARAM GOVINDA JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, dated November 26, 1980 in M. R. T. K. P/164/79.

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 117-A of Village Bahireshwar, Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur. The respondents are the owners of the suit land. The respondents are the heirs of Shivaram Govind Jadhav. The said Shri Shivaram Govind Jadhav, since deceased, had obtained certificate under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act") on December 31, 1960. By virtue of the said certificate, the said deceased Shri Shivaram Govind Jadhav, predecessor-in-title of the respondents, became entitled to terminate the tenancy of the petitioners in respect of the suit land on the ground of bona fide requirement under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act. He accordingly gave notice on December 20, 1961 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the suit land. The said notice was received by the petitioner on December 3, 1961. It is thereafter that the said Shri Shivaram Govind Jadhav filed an application purporting to be under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act before the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Karvir, for possession of the suit land, being TNC Case No. 532 of 1962. He also claimed possession of the lands which were in possession of other two tenants as well. However, in the said proceedings, Shri Shivaram Govind Jadhav did not press for possession of the lands which were held by the other two tenants but pursued the matter only against the petitioner herein in respect of the suit land. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, Karvir, after considering the rival submissions and material on record, by judgment and order dated September 20, 1965, was pleased to allow the application and ordered that the petitioner shall handover possession of the suit land to the landlord after the appeal period was over. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chikotra Project, Kolhapur, being Tenancy Appeal No. 38 of 1978, albeit beyond limitation. The petitioner prayed for condonation of delay, mainly, on the ground that the order passed by the trial Court was not communicated to the petitioner and as such the limitation for filing the appeal did not commence. According to the petitioner, there was no delay in filing the said appeal. The Appellate Court, after considering the matter, treated the appeal to be within limitation. On merits, the Appellate Court took the view that the trial Court has failed to enquire into the bona fides of the landlord and as such thought it appropriate to remand the matter to the trial Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law. The Appellate Court, accordingly, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 31-3-1979. The respondents, being dissatisfied, carried the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, by its order dated 26-11-1980, was pleased to allow the revision application filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur restored the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun which, in turn, had granted the prayer for possession of the suit land in favour of the landlord.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner raised two points for consideration in this writ petition while assailing the correctness of the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur. It is contended that the Appellate Court has noticed that the lands were inam lands and the occupancy price in respect of the suit lands was paid on April 22, 1964 from which date the landlord became occupant thereof. Learned Counsel thus relied on section 88-CA of the Tenancy Act to contend that the provisions of section 33-B of the Tenancy Act, which were invoked by the respondent-landlord in respect of the suit lands, were not available since the suit lands were inam lands and exempted by the said provision. The second point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in any case since the original landlord had died during the pendency of the proceedings, it became imperative for the surviving heirs of the original landlord to prove their personal qualification as to bona fides and holding by reference to date of being brought on record. In support of this contention, learned Counsel relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in the case of (Maruti v. Dattatraya), 1977 Mh. L. J. 848. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition will have to be allowed as the proceedings under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act deserve to be quashed and set aside and dropped qua the petitioner since the suit land is inam land. According to the learned Counsel, at any rate, the matter requires to be remanded for an inquiry as to whether the heirs of the landlord would prove personal qualifications as to bona fide and their holding by reference to the date of being brought on record.