NARAYAN MADHAV SANGHANERI Vs. BHAUSAHEB KARBHARI KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the heirs, that is, the sons and widow of the original landlord who had made an application under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenancy Act"). After repeated reasons, the application was finally dealt with by the Additional Tahsildar who held that the income of the original applicant-landlord was more than Rs. 1500/- and therefore, the application under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act was liable to be rejected. Now admittedly when this order came to be passed on 25th September, 1975. The original landlord had died on 17th February, 1974. It appears, however, that the application came to be decided on the basis of evidence with regard to the income of the original landlord. The present petitioners had filed an appeal against that order, which was decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. During the pendency of the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, a decree had come to be passed in respect of two Survey Nos. 62-A and 62 having a total area of 8 acres, 17 gunthas, as a result of which these fields, which were originally in possession of the landlord, were handed over to the original owner. When this fact was sought to be canvassed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, he took the view that the income of the landlord in the year 1959 was required to be considered. Consequently he confirmed the order of the Additional Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. This order is now challenged by the present petitioners.

(2.) Mr. Perulekar appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the original landlord has contended that consequent to the death of the landlord his heirs are entitled to continue the proceedings under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act and they must, therefore, be given an opportunity to prosecute the application. On the other hand, Mr. Karandikar appearing on behalf of the tenant has contended that the status of a certificated landlord under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act is a personal status and the original landlord having died, the proceedings must abate, with the result that the tenant must be deemed to have become the owner of the field on 1st April, 1957 and reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on Full Bench decision of this Court in (Anna Maloonda Patil v. Vasant Raghunath Kulkarni) 64 Bom.L.R. 591.

(3.) Now, though there are decisions to the effect that a proceeding stated under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act by a certificated landlord can be prosecuted by his heirs and that the application under section 33-B does not abate on the death of the original landlord, the question as to whether an application under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act can also be similarly prosecuted by the heirs of the deceased landlord does not seem to have come up for consideration before this Court on any earlier occasion. It is, therefore necessary to consider the question on the words of section 88-C and the object with which that section was brought on the statute book.