DINA ONKAR PATIL Vs. DULBA RAJARAM PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the heirs of successors of one Onkar keshav and the respondents are heirs and successors of one Rajararn Totaram, in whose favour an agreement was entered into by Rajararn Onkar on 25-6- 1963 for a period of 10 years by deceased Onkar in respect of the land S. No. 178/a/2 admeasuring 1 hectare 34 acres situate at village Nimbala, Taluka raver, Dist. Jalgaon. The parties for the sake of convenience will be referred to as landlord and tenant. (The petitioners are the heirs of landlord and the respondents are heirs of tenant. )

(2.) The fact giving rise to the controversy are to be noted in somewhat detail. The suit land was admittedly owned by the landlord. The alleged tenancy agreement was arrived at on 25-6-1963 i. e. after tillers day. R. C. S. No. 115/73 was filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of rent of the suit land. The landlord contended that tenant taken the suit land on the lease in the year 1963-64 for a period of 10 years on payment of rent at rs. 700/- p. a. As the tenant has failed to pay the rent, the landlord filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The learned Civil Judge (J. D. ) Parner by the judgment and order dated 27-6-1979 decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27-6-1979 passed by the learned civil Judge (J. D. ) Raver, the tenant preferred appeal to the District Court, jalgaon, being Civil Appeal No. 208/1979. That appeal was dismissed by the extra Assistant Judge, Jalgaon by the judgment and order dated 16th October, 1980. No further appeal was carried to this Court. Thus the question of recovery of rent stands concluded.

(3.) Before filing of the suit the tenant filed an application on 18-11-1972 for fixation of price of the land under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was contended by the tenant that he was cultivating the suit land as a tenant and tenancy was created after tillers day and as such the provisions of section 32- o of the Act are attracted. As such he gave notice to the landlord expressing his intention to purchase the land. Simultaneously notice was also given to the Tahsildar. On receipt of the application the Tahsildar i. e. Agricultural lands Tribunals noticed the parties and conducted an enquiry. In that enquiry the a. L. T. was called upon to decide whether Rajararn is a tenant and whether the opponents are landlords and whether the tenant is entitled to purchase the land. If he is entitled to purchase the land, to what extent he can purchase the land and what should be the purchase price. Before A. L. T. parties led evidence, on the basis of the evidence, Tahsildar recorded a finding that Totaram is the tenant of the land but as the intimation was not given as required under section 32-O, within one years from commencement of tenancy, he held that the tenant is not entitled to purchase the land. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, raver held against the tenant and rejected the application by the order dated 8th October, 1974.