BABULAL Vs. DROPADABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner challenges concurrent Judgments rendered by learned Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T., Kopergaon in Tenancy Case No. 3 of 1982, learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner in Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 1983 and M.R.T., Pune in Tenancy Revision Application No. MRT/AR/VI/3/90 (TNE.V. 174.1990).

(2.) Originally, the respondents along with deceased Dhrupadabai W/o Manohar Gore had filed joint application under section 43 - A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (For short, 'B.T. and A. L. Act') read with Govt. Notification dated 14-2-1958 issued thereunder. Together they may be referred as 'the landlords' and the petitioner may be referred as 'the tenant'. It is an admitted fact that the land bearing S.No. 291/1-2-3/4A/4B/2A situated at Rahata (Dist. Ahmednagar) was leased out to the petitioner. The land in question comprised of 1 H. 11 Rs.(2Acres 31 Gunthas). Out of the said land, the tenant had released 1 H. 7 gunthas land in favour of original landlord, namely, Manohar Gore for his personal cultivation. After the death of said Manohar Gore, the tenancy in respect of the remaining land was continued. It appears that somewhere in 1981, the said 1 A. 7 Gunthas land, which was surrendered in favour of the respondents, was sold away by them due to financial difficulties. They sought restoration of possession in respect of the remaining 64 Rs. land on the ground that they had no other source of income, except the agriculture and that they bona-fidely required the land for personal cultivation. They submitted that the land was leased out for cultivation of sugarcane and, therefore, initially the relevant provisions could not have been invoked in view of section 43A, which exempted the tenancy from applicability of certain provisions including section 31 to 31-D and 32 to 32-R, etc. of the B.T. and A.L. Act. They submitted that subsequently by virtue of Govt. Notification dated 14-2-1958, they were entitled to seek restoration of the land because they did not hold more than one economic holding and used to earn their livelihood principally by agriculture or agriculture labour. The application filed by deceased Dhrupadabai and the respondents was resisted by the petitioner. He submitted that the respondents and deceased Dhrupadabai were not eligible to claim the land in question under section 31-C of the B.T. and A.L. Act. He further contended that the respondents were not principally earning livelihood from agricultural income nor were working as agricultural labours. He admitted that the landlords had served a termination notice on him. He denied that the tenancy was lawfully terminated. He asserted that the respondents (landlords) have not fulfilled the conditions enumerated in the Notification in question and as such were not entitled to seek restoration of the land in question.

(3.) At the outset, it may be mentioned that there are concurrent findings of facts rendered by the three (3) Tribunals below. The record shows that deceased Dhrupadabai was alive till the impugned Judgment was rendered by the M.R.T. She died during pendency of the present Writ Petition. Needless to say, all along her case pertaining to applicability of the conditions enumerated in the Notification was in existence. Obviously, clinching question is : Whether legal representatives of deceased Dhrupadabai, who are remaining respondents, and who were already parties to the original proceedings, can be deprived of the fruits of the concurrent findings of the three (3) Tribunals on the ground that due to her death, the change of circumstances require afresh proof in respect of satisfaction of the conditions enumerated under the Notification by them, separately, and, therefore, it is necessary to remand the matter to the tenancy Tribunal. The subsequent developments are required to be noticed if it is found that due to change in the circumstances, the legal position of the parties undergo a substantial change.