MAHADEO MAROTI Vs. GANPATI SOUSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which has been referred to the Division Bench is as follows :

(2.) THE appellants in the other two appeals are also tenants and the respective landlords had filed suits claiming lease money on the basis of the original agreement of lease. However, in both these cases the lease money was agreed to be paid on 1-1-1959, that is, after the Tenancy Act had already come in force. In the two suits filed by the plaintiff also the defence of the defendants-appellants was that they were liable to pay only the maximum amount prescribed under Section 11 of the Tenancy Act and not the amount as agreed by the agreement of lease. The trial Court in both the cases held that the tenants were liable to pay according to the terms of the agreement of lease and the suits were accordingly decreed. Their appeals were dismissed by the District Judge, Amravati, and they have, therefore, filed the two appeals Nos. 357 and 359 of 1963 challenging the decisions of the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. It may be stated that the appellants in Second Appeal No. 357 of 1963 are the same persons as the appellants in Second Appeal No. 292 of 1963.

(3.) WHEN these three appeals came before one of us (Chandurkar J.) two decisions of Abhvankar. J. and one decision of Paranjpe, P. were cited in Dattatraya v. Gulabchand, 1964 Mah LJ Note No. 11 and Shri Radha Raman Sansthan v. Parashram, 1964 Mah LJ Note No. 8. Abhyankar. J. had taken the view that a lessee for 1958-59 was entitled to the benefit of Section 11 of the Tenancy Act. A contrary view was, however, taken by Paranjpe. J. in Shri Sadawarth Sansthan v. Deorao, 1963 Mah LJ 860 and in view of this direct conflict between the two decisions of this Court, the question reproduced above was referred to a Division Bench.