SADANAND GAJANAN MULYE Vs. MANKA DIPA PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the original landlord arising out of proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 tenant for declaration of his tenancy in respect of the suit land Survey No. 4, Hissa No. 4 measuring O -Acre 14.8 gunthas assessed at Rs. 2.51 situate at village Phansavale, Taluka and District : Ratnagiri. The case of the respondent was that he was cultivating the suit land for over 30 years, that is to say prior to April 1, 1957. An application was made before the Tahsildar purporting to be under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Tenancy Act') on October 7, 1978. The respondent tenant examined himself and produced two witnesses viz. Shankar Sangare and Govind Pawar, in support of his contention that he was cultivating the suit land for the last several years. He also produced four receipts for payment of land revenue viz. receipts bearing No. 40/3, 35/5, 112/2 and 157/3. They pertain to the years 1964, 1965, 1970 and 1976. The respondent further contended that he had paid the rent or khand to the petitioner -landlord who never gave any receipts. The respondent was apparently constrained to admit that he never gave any receipts even to his other tenants when they paid the rent or the khand. There is a pencil entry in favour of the respondent for the year 1977 -78. Despite this evidence, however, the Tahsildar came to the conclusion that the respondent was not a contractual tenant under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act and hence, refused to grant the declaration sought under Section 70(b) of the said Act. According to the Tahsildar the respondent could have produced better evidence in support of his contention that he was a tenant for such a long period. Reliance was also placed by the Tahsildar on the absence of rent receipts.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by this order dated September 28, 1979 passed by the Tahsildar, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Assistant Collector, Ratnagiri. The Appeal Court came to the conclusion that Section 4 of the Tenancy Act contemplated a person to be deemed as a 'tenant' if the land was not cultivated personally by the owner and if such a person was not -

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order dated April 18, 1980 the petitioner had preferred a Revision Application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appreciation of evidence by the appellate authority was proper and having regard to the overwhelming evidence suggesting the cultivation of the respondent No. l over a period of 30 years, the Tribunal found no error of law or jurisdiction to intervene in a revision. The Tribunal also referred to the plea that there was some oral contract for sale of the land by the petitioner to the respondent No. l for a consideration of Rs. 750/ - out of which Rs. 450/= was already paid and the balance payable, was Rs. 300/=. There is a post -card on record allegedly written by the petitioner -landlord, who denies his signature. Comparing some of the admitted signatures on the record, the Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the post -card was apparently written by the petitioner -landlord, which supported the respondent's case that since he was a tenant on the suit land, it was agreed to be sold to him. In this view of the matter, the Revisional Court confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority and dismissed the revision application.