PARVATIBAI Vs. SITABAI GANPAT CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject - matter in dispute in this Special Civil Application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, consists of agricultural land S. No. 501/3 situate at Saswad in Poona District. This land and some other lands originally belonged to Ganpat Chavan, the Husband of respondent No. 1. The petitioner was the tenant of he above land. There was another tenant Laxman Jagtap in possession of some other lands of Ganpat. Ganpat applied for a certificate under Section 88 - C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, and obtained it on January 20, 1959, in respect of the aforesaid land and the lands in possession of Jagtap. Unfortunately, Ganpat died thereafter. Respondent No. 1 alone claiming to be the sole heir of Ganpat, terminated the tenancy of the petitioner and of the aforesaid Jagtap under Section 33 - B of the Bombay Tenancy Act and filed an application in the Court of the Tenancy Avl Karkun, Purandhar; for restoration of possession of the aforesaid lands on March 29, 1962.

(2.) LAXMAN Jagtap settled so far as he was concerned, the matter with respondent No. 1 by giving possession to her of the lands in his possession. The petitioner resisted the application on several grounds including the ground that respondent No. 1 could not terminate the tenancy relying on the certificate granted to her deceased husband; and further that even if she could do so, she could not file an application without joining her sons and daughters who were heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Ganpat. It was also contended that the landlady did not bona fide require the lands for personal cultivation. The Tenancy Aval Karkun overruled the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and ordered possession to be given to the landlady on September 16, 1964.

(3.) THE petitioner carried an appeal to the Deputy Collector, who reversed the order on the ground that respondent No. 1 could not rely on the certificate granted to her deceased husband. Respondent No. 1 then filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the decision of the Deputy Collector. The Tribunal by its decision dated March 17, 1967 set aside the order of the Deputy Collector relying on the decision of this Court in Parvati Ramchandra v. Mahadu, 69 Bom LR 383 = (AIR 1967 Bom 428 ). there Tarkunde and K. K. Desai, JJ. held that the right of a certificated landlord to apply under Section 33 - B of the Bombay Tenancy Act for possession of land from an excluded tenant does not lapse on his death and can be exercised, within the specified time, by his successor in interest. The Tribunal applied the case to the facts of the present case and further held that as respondent No. 1 was the sole legatee of the will, it was not necessary for the sons and daughters to be joined in the application. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and restored the order passed by the Tenancy Aval Karkun.