RAOJIBHAI VAGHJIBHAI PATEL Vs. KARSANBHAI RATNABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by the landlord of certain lands admeasuring 42 acres 29 gunthas situate atBoroi in Sabarkantha District. Respondent No. 1 is the tenant in occupation of those lands, rent for which was payable in the form of share of crops. The case of the petitioner was that respondent No. 1 had committed default in the payment of rent for the agricultural years 1953 -54, 1954 -55 and 1955 -56 and, in consequence of the same, he became entitled to terminate the tenancy of respondent No. 1. He gave notice to respondent No. 1 on January 17, 1956, giving intimation that respondent No. 1 had committed two defaults in respect of the agricultural years 1953 -54 and 1954 -55. It will be necessary to set out the material part of the contents of that notice a little later in our judgment. Correspondence ensued between the parties and the petitioner served another notice on respondent No. 1 on March 16, 1956. In that notice the petitioner stated in effect that he was keeping the first notice alive. On July 18, 1956, the petitioner filed the Tenancy case in the Court of the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar held that there were two defaults. He also held that the notice dated January 17, 1956, was not valid since it had been waived by the subsequent notice dated March 16, 1956. He also held that there was no default in respect of the rent for the year 1955 -56. Being of that view he rejected the petitioner's application.

(2.) IN appeal, the Assistant Collector held that there was no waiver of the notice of January 17, 1956. He also held that there were two defaults committed by respondent No. 1. He set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and called upon respondent No. 1 to pay up the arrears of rent for the years 1953 -54 and 1954 -55 within three months from the date of the receipt of intimation of that order by respondent No. 1.

(3.) IT has been argued before us by Mr. R. B. Kotwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the notice dated January 17, 1956, was not in accordance with law. The relevant part of the notice was as under: