THAKUBAI MARUTI TUPE Vs. ANKUSH HIRAMAN MAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question that arises in this second appeal is whether the decision of an Agricultural Lands Tribunal in proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenancy Act") holding that the inclusion of the Tenancy Act, though not correct in accordance with law, is binding on the Civil Court in a subsequent civil suit filed by the landlord on the footing that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the Tenancy Act.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present second appeal are these. Land Survey No. 103, Hissa No. 17, admeasuring 1 acre and three gunthas situated at Hadapsar, District Pune, belongs to the respondents, the original plaintiffs. It was leased to one Maruti Narayan Tupe who is the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6. On March 3, 1962, the suit land came to be included within the Municipal limits of Municipal Corporation of Pune. It seems that since Maruti was in possession of the land as a tenant on the Tillers day i. e. April 1, 1957, proceedings were started under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. On January 17, 1970, Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Haveli, held that inasmuch as the suit land was included within the corporation area, the tenant was not entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and as such he was not entitled to purchase the land as a deemed purchaser. The tenant filed an appeal against the said decision but it was dismissed. There is no dispute that the tenant did not carry the matter further and the decision given by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Haveli, as confirmed in appeal, became final.

(3.) ON June, 13, 1971, the respondent issued a notice of termination asking possession by the end of July 31, 1972. Since the tenant failed to deliver the possession the respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 533 of 1975 against the appellants for possession of the suit land. The trial Court decreed the said suit. The appellants filed an appeal bearing No. Civil Appeal No. 435 of 1978. However, the appeal was also dismissed on November 30, 1978.