PANCHFULABAI BAPUBAO DESHMUKH Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also govern the disposal of Special Civil Applications Nos. 209 and 210 of 1961.

(2.) THE petitioner Panchfulabai claims to be a protected lessee of field S.No. 30, area 28 acres 20 gunthas, revenue Rs. 12, situate at mauza Sakhra Khurd, in Kelapur taluq of Yeotraal district. Respondent No. 2 Shankarrao Mankar was the landholder of this field. This field was in cultivating possession of one Kesheo who was a minor son of the petitioner. Kesheo was in possession of the land as a protected lessee on January 1, 1953. It appears that Shankarrao had leased out another field S. No. 33 to Bapurao, father of Kesheo. Shankarrao filed a suit for arrears of lease money in the civil Court against Bapurao. It is riot clear from the record whether the protected lessee Kesheo was impleaded in that suit. During the pendency of the suit on May 3, 1956, a compromise was arrived at between the landholder Shankarrao and Bapurao, the tenant. It is alleged that as a result of this compromise over and above the payment of arrears of lease money being made, the rights as a protected lessee in respect of S. No. 30 were also surrendered by Kesheo in favour of the landholder Shankarrao, the plaintiff. Shankarrao obtained possession as a result of this compromise in respect of S. No. 30 in that suit. Subsequently, Shankarrao sold field No. 30 to respondent No. 3 Ragho and respondent No. 4 Jaita, each having purchased different portions of the same field. Thus, the admitted position is that from May 12, 1956, Kesheo was not in possession of the property.

(3.) THE tenant Panchfulabai preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector with appellate powers. The Deputy Collector rejected the contention of the landholder and the transferee that Kesheo or Panchfulabai who claimed to step in his shoes was not a protected lessee at the relevant time. The appellate authority accepted the evidence of Bapurao, father of Kesheo, that the laud was relinquished because of the pressure of the civil suit. It, therefore, held that the case clearly fell under the provisions of Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 10 of the new Tenancy Act and in that view ordered restoration of possession to the petitioner. The appellate authority made a reference to the decision of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal in Lachanna v. Baliram [1958] N.L.J. 224 but held that the decision was not applicable nor the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It also held that Section 132 (2) of the new Tenancy Act did not safeguard interests of the landholders, or the transferees in the manner contended by them.