DHONDU SHAMRAO POLAKHARE Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant of the land, which belongs to opponent No. 4, hereinafter referred to as the opponent. The opponent made an application under Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, for obtaining possession of the land from the petitioner, on the ground that he required the same bona -fide for personal cultivation. The Naib Tehsildar granted his application. That order was set aside in appeal by the Sub -divisional Officer, who held that the income from the land would not be the principal source of maintenance of the opponent. In revision, the Revenue Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Sub -divisional Officer and restored the order made by the Naib Tehsildar. The order passed by the Revenue Tribunal is being challenged before us.

(2.) SUB -section (3) of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act provides that the right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy under Sub -section (1) shall be subject to the following conditions, namely - (c) The income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to take possession is the principal source of income for the maintenance of such landlord not being a landlord whose total holding whether as tenure holder or tenant or partly as tenure holder and partly as tenant does not exceed one family holding and who earns his livelihood principally by agriculture or by agricultural labour. The words beginning with 'not being a landlord' were inserted in Clause (c) by Section 8(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha and Kutch Area) Amendment Act, 1960 (Maharashtra Act No. V of 1961). If these words are left out of consideration, the position would be that before a landlord can obtain possession of any land, he must prove that the income from that land will be the principal source of income for his maintenance.

(3.) THE Revenue Tribunal has in its order observed: If the argument of Shri Jakatdar were to prevail, it would render the amendment nugatory and the object of the legislature would be frustrated since no petty landlord would ever be able to show that he lives principally by agriculture. This observation does not appear to be correct, because there are many petty landlords, who live principally on agriculture, but whose income is not sufficient for their maintenance. It is evidently to help such small landlords that the amendment has been made. The amendment provides for an exception to the first part of the clause, and specifies when the condition about the land being the principal source of maintenance need not be satisfied.