GAJANAN MAHARAJ SANSTHAN SHEGAON Vs. DIGAMBAR PANDHARI BHISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner a public trust having registration No. A-250- (Bul) has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india challenging orders dated 19-11-1991 passed by Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, Nagpur and order dated 27-6-1988 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, akot with a request to restore order of Tahsildar and Chairman, Agricultural lands Tribunal dated 9th March, 1988.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application under section 36 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "tenancy Act") for restoration of possession of field Survey No. 6, area 28 Acres 27 Gunthas at Mouza : Lamkani. It was their contention that being public trust, they have got exemption under section 129 (b) of Tenancy Act and provisions of chapter III thereof are not applicable. The petitioners therefore are entitled to claim possession after issuing notice as contemplated by section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly the petitioners issued notice dated 12th August, 1986 and demanded possession on 31-3-1987 i. e. at the end of agriculture year. The respondent got said notice on 21-8-1986 and he replied that notice on 10th september, 1986. In his reply he contended that he is cultivating the said field since 1957 and initially rent was Rs. 461/- which was fixed at Rs. 210/- in accordance with tenancy laws. He further stated that he has given donation of rs. 11,111/- to the petitioner for medical college and trust cannot cultivate the said land which is at a distance of about 50 kms. He further stated that on account of drought in the year 1983-84 he could not forward rent but after notice he forwarded rent and it has been refused by the petitioner. The Tahsildar has accepted the case as pleaded by the petitioner Trust and held that the tenancy of respondent is validly terminated at the end of agricultural year 1986-87 w. e. f 31-3-1987 and within 60 days he should hand-over possession to the petitioner.

(3.) The respondent challenged this order in appeal under section 107 of tenancy Act before Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot. The S. D. O. found that the petitioner trust did not demand possession since 1957 till date and he further found that section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not attracted. He further found that being trust land the respondent/tenant could not become owner and if tenant defaults in paying lease money the landlord has to issue notice under section 19 (ii) of Tenancy Act for termination of tenancy. He further found that here tenant was not found in default of payment of lease money. He therefore, quashed and set aside the order of Tahsildar and allowed the appeal. The petitioners challenged this order by filing revision under section 111 before maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the M. R. T. found that section 106 of Transfer of Property Act has no application and has further found that S. D. O. has passed order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Hence, M. R. T. dismissed the revision. These orders are challenged by the petitioner trust in the present writ petition.