CHONDRU GOMES Vs. MAMLATDAR, TISWADI TALUKA, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner challenges the orders passed by the first three respondents. The facts leading to the present petition briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) ON 5 -9 -1975 the petitioner made an application to the first respondent for a declaration that he was tenant in respect of a paddy field and for possession of the same from the fourth respondent who is alleged to be landlady of the said field. In this application the petitioner alleged that he has been a tenant of the said field which consists of two portions, for the last 12 years and has been cultivating the same personally and paying the rent in kind to the landlady regularly. He further alleged that the said field was in his possession till May 1975, but the fourth respondent forcibly took possession thereof in May 1975 and started cultivating it herself. it was on these facts that the petitioner moved the first respondent for declaration and possession. In support of his case the petitioner examined five witnesses who generally stated that the petitioner had been cultivating the said land for the last 10 to 12 years. The first respondent by his order passed on 30 -9 -1976 held that for proving tenancy mere cultivation of the field was not enough and both lease and payment of rent had to be proved. On the evidence he found that the petitioner had failed to prove the lease and payment of rent which, according to the first respondent, were essential elements for seeking declaration as a tenant. In this view of the matter the first respondent dismissed the petitioner's application. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner approached the second respondent in appeal who by his order passed on 30 -3 -1977 dismissed it. Consequently the petitioner moved the third respondent in its revisional jurisdiction but without any result. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) NO one has appeared for any of the respondents.