ANNAPPA SIDAPPA NARGUDE Vs. LAXMIBAI SADASHIV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 16th October 1967 in Revision No. MRT KP IX 17/65 (TEN AP 439/65 ). The land in question being Survey No. 34, admeasuring 17 Acres 29 gunthas situated at village Yadav in Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. The subject land was given on lease to the predecessor of the Petitioners by written lease deed dated 19-12-1863 by the predecessor of Respondents i. e. landlords thereof. The relevant clause which would govern the contention raised before this Court in the said lease deed reads thus: the English translation of this clause which has been done with the assistance of Counsel appearing for both the parties and which is acceptable to them read thus:

(2.) IT is not in dispute that although the lease was for cultivation of the sugar cane crop but the land was cultivated for Jiryat crops till 1957. In fact, the well was dug in the suit land only some time in 1960-61. Even this position is not in dispute. It is not necessary to advert to the litigation between the parties prior to 1957 for deciding issue that arises for consideration of this case. Suffice it to mention that the landlord had filed suit for enhancement of the lease rent, which plea was however, rejected and it has been so confirmed right upto this court. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner started cultivating the sugar cane only in a portion of the suit land from the year 1960-61 to the extent of only 1 Acre 30 gunthas out of the suit land. The Respondents, however, some time in the year 1963 filed an application under Section 43b of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to Tenancy Act) contending that now the land was being actually cultivated for sugar cane crop from the year 1960-61, they were entitled for enhancement of lease rent at a reasonable rate. That application was resisted by the Petitioners on diverse counts. One of the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners was that although the lease was for the cultivation of sugar cane crop but the lands were not put to cultivation of sugar cane as such, till the tiller's day and on account of that fact the Petitioners have become deemed purchasers of the suit land and the Special provisions of Chapter IIIA of the Act will have no application to the present case. On that premise the Petitioners prayed that the application be rejected. The tenancy authority by order dated 15-7-1963 accepted the said plea of the Petitioners-tenants and held that the land was not leased for cultivation of sugar cane crop and therefore the Petitioners have become deemed purchasers on the tiller's day on 1-4-1957 and on account of that fact the relationship between the Petitioners and the Respondents as tenants and landlord was snapped and the application cold not proceed further.

(3.) AGAINST this decision the Respondents carried the matter in appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 129 of 1984. The appellate authority by order dated 31-5-1965 held that on perusal of the lease deed it would appear that lease was for cultivation of sugar cane crop and in that view of the matter the provisions of Chapter IIIA would clearly apply to the suit land and it would be imperative to consider the prayer for fixation of reasonable rent. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Respondents was allowed. Against that decision the Petitioners carried the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to dismiss the revision application and confirmed the view taken by the appellate authority that on plain language of the lease deed it would appear that the lease was for cultivation of sugar cane crop and in such a situation provision of Chapter IIIA of the Act would clearly apply to the said land. The Tribunal has further observed that the fact that the land was not actually used for cultivation of sugar cane crop till tiller's day was of no consequence as what was required to be seen was only the purpose of lease and it was found that the lease was for cultivation of the sugar cane crop then the special provision under Chapter IIIA would apply to such a land. In support of the above view, the Tribunal has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Special Civil Application No. 1334 of 1960 decided on 17th July 1961, in the case of Ebrahim Abdulla v. Babu Fakir Harphale and Anr. In that decision the Division Bench of this Court has held that when the lands were leased to the tenant under a registered document, and the best evidence of the purpose for which the lands were leased was the document itself. Further, what Section 43a requires is not what the Prant Officer seems to have assumed that the lands were actually used for growing sugar cane, but that the lease of the lands must have been granted for the cultivation of sugar cane or for growing fruits or flowers. Accordingly, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the revision preferred by the Petitioner, challenging the remand order passed by the appellate authority to enquire into the question of reasonable rent in respect of the suit land as prayed by the Respondent.