GANPAT KHANDERAO DESHMUKH Vs. RAMCHANDRA TUKARAM GAWANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 13th July 1988 in revision No. Ten. A. 128 of 1985. Briefly stated, the land in question is an agricultural land bearing gat No. 38 admeasuring 10 acres 33 gunthas of village Cnachadgaon, Taluka Dindori, District nashik. The Petitioner claims to be the owner in respect of the suit land, which was originally class IV-B Inam land. After Inam was abolished, the land has been converted to Rayatwari on payment of regrant charges and the land has been regranted to the Petitioner in the year 1965. The Petitioner had issued notices to the Respondents demanding arrears of rent for the period 1960-61 and terminating the tenancy rights in respect of the suit land. Thereafter, application was filed by the Petitioner for possession of the suit land on the ground of default on 1st August 1974, being application No. 66 of 1974 under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). That application was, however, dismissed by the Additional Tahsildar on January 20, 1975. Amongst others, that order records that- the land was Inam land and has been regranted in favour of the Petitioner in the year 1965. It is noted in the order that the Petitioner did not apply for restoration of possession of the suit land for bonafide personal cultivation after the regnant and as such, the Respondents tenants have become deemed purchasers in the suit land since year 1967-68. Be that as it may, the Petitioner gave notices for subsequent period of defaults on 22nd September 1975, 17th May 1976 and 20th May 1977 alleging that the Respondents were in arrears, and for which reason, terminated the tenancy. On the basis of the aforesaid three notices, petitioner filed fresh application for possession under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Act, against which, the present Writ Petition arises before this Court.

(2.) SUFFICE it to mention that the said application came to be eventually dismissed by the tahsildar, holding that the Petitioner failed to establish the default. However, the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was allowed by the sub-Divisional Officer, who in turn directed the respondents to deliver possession of the entire suit property to the Petitioner. Respondents, therefore, carried the matter in Revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, by the impugned Judgment and Order has allowed the revision Application preferred by the Respondents and set-aside the order passed by the Appellate authority. The application filed by the Petitioner for possession has been consequently dismissed. The Tribunal has mainly found that the notices sent by the Petitioner, the basis on which application for possession has been instituted under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Act, do not confirm to all the requirements of Section 25 (2) of the Act. Inasmuch as, it failed to give intimation to the respondents/tenants to pay rent within the period of three months of each default. This view is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submissions, the principal question that arises for consideration is whether the notices sent by the petitioner on 22nd September 1975, 17th May 1976 and 20th May 1977 can be said to be in conformity with the requirement of Section 25 (2)of the Act and proceedings under Section 14 read with Sections 25 and 29 for possession can be rested on such notices, before I proceed to examine this aspect, it will be apposite to advert to Section 25 (2) of the Act. The same reads thus :