KHANDO GANESH KULKARNI Vs. BANDO RAMCHANDRA MUJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition need not be treated with any exaggerated respect because it is by a tenant who has been guilty of default in the payment of arrears of rent not only under the contract of lease but also under the orders of the Court. The respondents are the landlords and the petitioner is the tenant of two lands together measuring 7 acres 2 gunthas situated at village Atogaon in Radhanagari Tahsil of Kolhapur District. Admittedly the suit lands are leased to the petitioner for the cultivation of sugar-cane. He committed default in the payment of rent for three years, namely 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1970-71. The proceedings under section 29 read with sections 14 and 25 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act", were taken by the respondents and ultimately they culminated in the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal of Kolhapur in Revision Application No. MRT.KP. 126/76 passed on 15th February, 1977. By the said order the Revenue Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2419.18 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 590.22 paid by him to the landlords within 3 months from the date of the order. In the event of failure of such payment, self-operative direction was given that the tenant shall be evicted from the land and the possession of the land shall be restored to the landlords.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited this amount within 3 months from the date of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. He deposited in the Government treasury the amount on 16th May, 1977 which has been found by the three authorities below to be two days later then the date on which he was to pay the amount. The respondents, therefore, filed an application, being Misc. Tenancy Application No. 5/77, for execution of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The facts of the litigation and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were set out in details by the respondents in their application. The petitioner filed a written statement in which he contended, among other things, that he had gone to the second respondent to pay the amount but the amount was not accepted. The landlord examined himself on oath and denied that the petitioner had come to him for paying the amount on 9th May, 1977. The petitioner did not examine himself on oath.

(3.) The Tahsildar of Radhanagari by his judgment and order dated 7th June, 1977 directed that the possession of the lands be restored to the respondents. This order was confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Shahuwadi Division of Kolhapur by his judgment and order dated 30th August, 1977 in Tenancy Appeal No. 70 of 1977 preferred by the petitioner. This order was further confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its detailed judgment given on 29th April, 1978 in Revision Application No. MRT.KP. 340/77 which is now the subject-matter of challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.