NOORKHAN GULZARKHAN Vs. AKBARALI ISMAILBHAI JIWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to challenge an order of eviction passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Darwha, district Yavatmal against him under the provisions of section 120(c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (referred to hereinafter as the Bombay Tenancy Act) upon an application by landlord -Akbarali who is respondent before me, as confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur in Revision Application No. Ten -A -169/80 on 2 -2 -1981.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that respondent Akbarali claimed that petitioner Noorkhan was engaged as a servant to work on his field survey No. 73/2 of Darwha owned by him and when his services were terminated on 26 -6 -1976 he obtained forcible possession of the said field by putting forward a false claim that he was a tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It was contended that there was no contract of tenancy and Noorkhan was a rank trespasser. Summary eviction under the provisions of section 120(c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act was prayed. Noorkhan denied that he was a servant of Akbarali at any time and further claimed that the field in question was leased out to him in the summer of 1961 by the father of Akbarali who was managing the field property on his behalf and that he continued to cultivate the field in question as a tenant even after 1965, in which year father of Akbarabli died. According to defence, Noorkhan being a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy Act, on 1 -4 -1961 had acquired statutory ownership over the field in question.

(3.) BEFORE the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal an argument was advanced on behalf of Noorkhan that he could not be ousted from possession of the field in question under the provisions of section 120(c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act because it could not be said that he was unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of field survey No. 73/2 of Darwha to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the said provisions (provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act). This argument was advanced by reference to a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Bhai Ardaman Singh and others : AIR 1969 SC 13. Shn P.C. Madkholkar learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur brushed aside this argument without discussing its merits and merely by observing that the case of Supreme Court of India referred to above related to Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 and, therefore, it need not be considered.