DADU NARAYAN PATIL Vs. JAMNIBAI RAGHO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by an opponent to an application made by the heir of the tenant to claim possession under Section 84 of the Tenancy Act in which an order for eviction was passed. The facts of this case are the following :

(2.) ON January 9, 1965 the present Opponent No. 1 made an application under Section 84 of the Tenancy Act for obtaining possession from the present petitioner. Her contention in the application was that her husband Ragho Patil was declared to be a protected tenant of the lands in dispute. He continued to be in possession until his death in 1959. Jamnibai, the widow, was his only heir, as such she became entitled to possession of this land. She further stated that Opponent No. 1 was wrongfully in possession of the property and had deprived her of her legitimate right to be in possession. She, therefore, claimed the relief for possession under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.

(3.) THIS application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the brother of opponent No. 1, the landlord, had in the year 1953 given these lands on lease to him. Some unstamped vague letter was produced as a deed of lease. Upon enquiry the learned Assistant Collector of Thana came to the conclusion that the material led by the petitioner was not believable that he was the tenant of the land. However, a further fact was taken into consideration by the learned Assistant Collector viz. that an application under Section 70-B of the Tenancy Act was made by the petitioner and that the right of Ragho Patil, the deceased husband of the original applicant needs to be properly enquired into and only then the summary powers under Section 84 can be exercised. The application made by present Opponent No. 1 was dismissed. Against that order the present Opponent No. 1 went in appeal to the Revenue Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal held that the present petitioner failed to prove that he had any right to remain upon the property and therefore the original Applicant Jamnibai had proved that the present petitioner was wrongfully in possession of the land. The revision application, therefore was allowed by the Revenue Tribunal and an order for summary eviction of the present petitioner was made. Against this order the instant petition has been filed.