RAMRAO DAYANU PAWAR Vs. SHANKAR BHAU ALREKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two proceedings arise out of a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. The dispute pertains to the question as to whether the orders passed by the tenancy authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, directing that the tenant should hand over possession of Serial No. 708/2 situate at Kadamwadi are void and without jurisdiction of the tenancy authorities. In order to understand the controversy, it would be necessary to refer to certain facts over which there cannot be any dispute at this stage. Instead of referring to the parties as the petitioners and the respondents, it would be more convenient to refer to then by names.

(2.) Ramrao Pawar (who died pending the tenancy litigation and whose legal representatives are the petitioners in both these petitions) was a tenant of Serial No. 709/2. This land is within Municipal limits. Shankar Alrekar (who is respondent No. 1 in these matters) is the landlord. The land was let out to Ramrao Pawar for cultivation of sugarcane. Shankar filed an application being Tenancy Case No. 3 of 1975 against Ramrao Pawar for possession of this land. He made this claim on the strength of the provisions of section 43-A(3) read with the notification issued by the Government under sub-section (3). In the later part of the judgment it would be necessary to consider the provisions of this section as also of sections 43-C and 43-D of the Tenancy Act and hence I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of these provisions herein as follows :---

(3.) I have already stated that Shankar filed application being Tenancy Cases No. 3 of 1975 for getting possession of the disputed property and the claim was in pursuance of the above- mentioned notification. The tenancy authority passed an order for delivery of possession to Shankar. Ramrao preferred Appeal No. 15 of 1977 before the Sub-Divisional officer. It was dismissed on 22-2-1978. He then filed Revision Application No. 158 of 1978 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was also dismissed. It appears that Ramrao died during the pendency of this revision and his legal representatives who are petitioners in the present proceedings were brought on record. However, I would refer to these legal representatives by mentioning them as tenant and not by the names of the legal representatives. The tenant then filed Writ Petition No. 3292 of 1981 in this Court against the above-mentioned decisions of the tenancy authorities. That writ petition was summarily dismissed on 13-10-1981. Before filing this writ petition, the tenant has filed Review Application No. 115 of 1981 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was dismissed on 16-9-1982. The tenant, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 3418 of 1982 against the decision of this review application. It was also dismissed summarily. The tenant also had filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court against the dismissal of these two writ petitions. The Supreme Court has dismissed this special leave petition. Thus, Shankar was entitled to get possession in terms of the orders of the tenancy authorities. On 2-11-1982 the Tahsildar issued a notice fixing 12-11-1982 as the date for delivery of possession. The tenant preferred Appeal No. 189 of 1982 against the issue of this notice. That appeal was dismissed and against this dismissal the tenant has filed Civil Revision Application No. 637 of 1983.