PURUSHOTTAM SHANKAR DESAI Vs. DAYARAM JAYARAM DHANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the landlords against an order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directing that possession of the disputed land be restored to the tenant Dayaram and the heirs of the co -tenant Jayaram. The facts of this case, which are not much in dispute, are the following:

(2.) SURVEY No. 195 admeasuring 2 acres and 5 gunthas belongs to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. In or about March 1960 possession of this land, inter alia, was obtained by the two petitioners by an order under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy Act for personal cultivation. A .consolidation scheme was thereafter framed by which survey No. 195, which belonged to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, was exchanged for survey No. 56/1, which admeasured 2 acres and 20 gunthas. On a subsequent occasion survey No. 56/1 was given Gat No. 463.

(3.) AN objection was taken that Jayaram having died in or about 1962, respondent No. 1 was not the only person entitled to seek possession; and that the other heirs not having been made parties, the application was not maintainable. An application for amendment was made for bringing respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on record as the heirs interested in the tenancy as they had inherited the tenancy along with respondent No. 1 upon the death of Jayaram, The amendment was permitted but on July 30, 1966, the Extra Awal Karkun rejected the application on the ground that since the application was made by respondent No. 1 alone, it was not maintainable. Against this order, an appeal was filed by respondent No. 1. The Sub -Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that an error was committed by the lower Court, firstly, in holding that respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 did not want to continue the tenancy, and secondly, in holding that the application made by respondent No. 1 alone was not maintainable. The order passed by the Extra Awal Karkun was, therefore, set aside and the matter was remanded for verifying which of the heirs of the deceased tenant would continue the tenancy, and for passing orders according to law. Against this decision, the landlords went in revision before the Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Sub -Divisional Officer in appeal; and it also passed an order that possession of the suit land should be restored to the tenants, Dayaram and opponents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The landlords have filed this petition.