DEVSHANKAR GANGARAM MEHTA Vs. BACHUBHA DEVSING CHUDASAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India by Devshankar Ganga-ram Mehta who is the original landlord. This applicant made an application No. 3067 of 1950 in the Court of the Tenancy Aval Karkun at Dhan-dhuka and the relief which he asked for in the application was to recover possession of survey Nos. 404, 321, 322, 294, 295, 293, 296 and 131 in the Sim of Zinzar. It was an application under Section 34 (1), Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Tenancy Aval Karkun held that the present Opponent No. 1 Bachubha Devising Chudasama was a protected tenant of only some survey numbers out of the survey numbers in respect of which the landlord had asked for the relief of posses- sion viz. , that he was a protected tenant of survey Nos. 131, 321 and 322 of the Sim of Zinzar. The Tenancy Aval Karkun further held that the applicant before him required the lands for bona fide personal cultivation. In respect of the notice which the applicant landlord had given to the tenant, the Aval Karkun held that the notice period expired on 31-3-1950 and that, therefore, it was a valid and legal notice. Consistently with these findings of his, the Tenancy Aval Karkun made an order in favour of the landlord in so far as survey Nos. 131, 321 and 322 were concerned. So far as the remaining survey numbers were concerned, the Aval Karkun took the view that the present Opponent No. 1 Bachubha Devi-singh Chudasama was not a tenant of those properties.

(2.) REELING aggrieved by the abovementloned decision of the Tenancy Aval Karkun, the tenant Bachubha Devising Chudasama went in appeal to the Prant Officer of the Dholka Prant and the Prant Officer held that the notice which was given by the landlord was bad in law. The Prant Officer took the view that the notice con-templated termination of the tenant's tenancy not on 31-3-1950 itself, but on any date before 31-3-1950 and that accordingly it was not a valid and legal notice. The Prant Officer-further held that the notice was bad on another ground also viz. , that it demanded possession of the properties from the tenant not only on the ground that the landlord wanted these lands for bona fide personal cultivation, but also on the ground that the lands were sub-let by the original tenant to another person. On these two grounds the Prant Offlcer held that the notice which was given by the landlord to the tenant was bad in law. Accordingly, he reversed the order of the Tenancy Aval Karkun end ordered the original application of the landlord to stand dismissed.

(3.) PROM the abovementioned order of the Prant Officer the landlord Devshankar Ganga-ram Mehta went in revision before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and the tribunal also came to the conclusion that the notice which was given by the landlord to the tenant was not a proper notice. In the opinion of the Revenue Tribunal, having regard to the contents of the notice, it was difficult to hold that the tenant could understand the notice to mean that he was to deliver possession of the properties "after the expiry of a clear year" as denned in Sub-section (20) of Section 2 of the Act. Holding that the notice was bad, the Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision application of the landlord. It is against that order of the Revenue Tribunal that the landlord has approached us under Arts. 226 and 227, Constitution Of India.