DADAJI VISHWANATH GOHANE Vs. SHAMRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question is raised in this petition by one of the co-owners, i. e. , the petitioners herein having interest in Survey No. 142/1, area 3. 29 acres of Ralegaon. The facts found by the courts below are that Nagorao was the tenant on the land and he inducted one Shamrao upon the land as a sub-tenant.

(2.) THE sub-tenancy of Shamrao was hit by the provisions of Section 33 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958, for it is a prohibition against sub-letting and the Law states that such sub-lease shall not be valid. The possession of Shamrao, therefore, was unlawful.

(3.) BOTH the courts below have come to the finding that, that is the effect. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal treated the matter to be one governed by Section 120 (c) and held that the present petitioner on his personal behalf as well as on behalf of his co-owner Ganpat were entitled to treat Shamrao as trespasser and the application filed by them was tenable. The learned Member further made the order that such an application can only be in the interest entitled to the possession of land and its enjoyment and accordingly made an order.