JAGNATH TUKARAM JADHAV Vs. ANAND KRISHNA NALAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Anturkar, for the petitioners and Mr. S. G. Karandikar, along with Mr. C. S. Joshi, for the respondent.

(2.) AS is usual in proceedings arising out of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"); this is the third round of litigation in the High Court. The case has already travelled once to Delhi and twice earlier to this Court. Brief Resume of Facts

(3.) MR. Anturkar drew my attention to sub-section (1) of section 33-B and contended that the said sub-section makes reference only to an application under sub-section (3) of section 33-B. Referring to sub-section (4), MR. Anturkar submitted that sub-section (4) applies only in a case where the Landlord is one of the person under disability namely minor, widow or a person having any physical or mental disability. MR. Anturkar submitted that Rangubai could have herself obtained a Certificate under section 88-C which was not done. According to MR. Anturkar, since Rangubai was not Certificated landlady, the present case is not governed either by sub-section (3) or by sub-section (4) of section 33-B and, hence, section 33-B has absolutely no application to the entire facts of this case. Submissions of respondent