KASHINATH MARUTI LABAS Vs. GULAB TULSIRAM KOLHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The Petitioner who is a protected tenant, applied under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, for possession by evicting the Respondent from the suit land. The suit land consists of two survey numbers, Survey Nos. 8 and 10, admeasuring 11. 5 acres and 9. 5 acres, respectively, of village Guru Pimpri, taluka ambad, district Jalna, which is subsequently converted into Gut No. 29.

(2.) THE Deputy Collector, as well as the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal in appeal, rejected the claim of the Petitioner, though for different reasons. The Deputy Collector found that the Petitioner is a protected tenant, but rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the Respondent-purchaser had purchased the property, after obtaining due permission under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. The Revenue tribunal, however, rejected the appeal filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner is not the protected tenant of the suit land at all. Hence, the decisions of both the authorities below are challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) SHRI Karwa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that the Revenue Tribunal has not taken into consideration the entire documentary evidence on record, but has based its findings regarding the tenancy of the Petitioner after taking into consideration some of the documents and ignoring the material documents on record. He has further contended that the Deputy Collector has committed an error in considering that the Respondent had purchased the property after due permission under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act. In fact, the procedure prescribed under the Rules framed under the Tenancy Act is not followed, inasmuch as no notice was issued to the tenant in permission proceedings. The permission is obtained behind the back of the Petitioner without his knowledge. No reliance should have been placed on such permission obtained by the Respondent.