LAXMAN GOVINDRAO AND OTHERS Vs. BAPURAO PUNYAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.

(2.) THE dispute is about Tenancy in respect of field survey No. 85 admeasuring 16.40 acres of village Yeranwadi, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha. One Govinda was the original landlord of the aforesaid field. He leased out the same to the respondent who admittedly was the tenant at the time of commencement of the Tenancy Act. The original Landlord filed an application under section 39 read with section 36 of the Tenancy Act for resumption of the suit held. The said case was registered as Rev. Case No. 63/59(10 -G)/61 -62 of Yeranwadi. The said application of the original petitioner for resumption of the suit field was allowed by the Tenancy Tahsildar by his order dated 12 -10 -1962. No appeal or revision was filed against the said order and the said order, therefore, became final and binding between the parties.

(3.) AT this stage it is necessary to notice another set of proceedings which are material for the purposes of this petition. The Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal started suo mom proceedings under sections 46, 49 -A and 48 of the Tenancy Act for transferring the ownership of the said field in a case registered as Rev. Case No. 1002/59(13)/63 -64 of village Yeranwadi. The Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal held in these proceedings that the respondent was not a tenant. He, therefore, dropped the proceedings. An appeal was preferred to the Sub -Divisional Officer against the aforesaid order of the Additional Tahsildar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The respondent tenant for the first time raised the plea of fresh lease before the Sub -Divisional Officer after the resumption of suit field was allowed by the Tenancy Tahsildar in the proceedings in Revenue Case No. 63/59(10 -G)/61 -62 of the village Yeranwadi. The sub -Divisional Officer remanded the proceedings to the trial Court for an enquiry into this question of fresh lease. After remand the trial Court again held that the respondent is not a tenant and dropped the proceedings by the order dated 29 -9 -1973. The Sub -Divisional Officer in appeal confirmed the said order by his order dated 31 -3 -1975. A revision was preferred to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in which the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by his order dated 19 -1 -1979 held that both the tenancy Courts below did not give any finding on the question of fresh leave although the Sub -Divisional Officer in his original order dated 30 -3 -1966 had remanded the case for decision on the question of fresh lease. The M.R.T., therefore, remanded the case to the trial Court for enquiry and decision on the question of fresh case as alleged by the tenant. It is this order of the M.R.T. which is impugned in this petition.