KAMALESH DASHRATH FOKMARE Vs. SUKUDOE PUNDLIK MAHALLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question which arises in this case and has been very elaborately argued is whether a Tahsildar in the exercise of the powers under Section 30 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act, can make an order directing the tenant to pay arrears of rent which had fallen due before the Tenancy Act came into force. The petitioners are the landlords of survey number 37/1, area 7 acres 34 gunthas, situated at Chandur, Taluq and district Akola. This field originally belonged to Bhikaji the grand-father of the petitioners and devolved on them by virtue of a will made by Bhikaji, who died on 21-8-1957. It is not disputed that the petitioners, had a right to recover lease money in respect of the years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57. They had served a notice on 30-11-1959 purporting to be one under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act terminating the tenancy of the respondent-tenant in case he failed to pay Rs. 480 as lease money. No steps for obtaining possession consequent on this termination were taken, but the petitioners later gave another notice on 6-6-1960 calling upon the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 72 as lease money for the year 1959-60. As this amount was not paid during the statutory period of 3 months the petitioners filed a proceeding for ejectment against the respondent. The Tenancy Tahsildar held that the respondent had failed to pay lease money for the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 but that the petitioners were not entitled to recover lease money for the years 1954-55 to 1956-57 which he determined at Rs. 72/- per year, because according to the Tahsildar, the right to recover this amount was barred by limitation. The Tahsildar then passed an order directing the respondent to pay the arrears of 3 years, that is, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, within a period of one year.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against this order. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that the petitioners were entitled to recover the amount of lease money for the years 1954-55 to 1956-57, and therefore, made an order that an amount of Rs. 216/- on account of arrears of rent for 3 years should be paid within 3 months from the date of the order. Since the nature of this order has been a matter of controversy of the parties it is necessary to reproduce the operative part of this order, which is as follows :

(3.) WHEN the revision application was re-heard by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that the order passed on 2-9-1963 was without jurisdiction and that the respondent could not be evicted for non-compliance with that order. This view was taken on the basis of a decision of this Court in Shantabai v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, Spl. Civil Appln. No. 544 of 1963, D/- 13-1-1965 (Bom ). The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, therefore, allowed the revision application filed by the respondent and rejected the application of the petitioners for possession. It is this order which the petitioners are now challenging in this petition.