HARIKISHAN Vs. KRISHNA DHANAJI SHELKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these companion matters raise a common question of some importance. The question was referred to the Division Bench on 9-2-1972 and then to the Full Bench on 13-8-1974. In all these petitions, the petitioner is the same landlord. His application for possession dated 3-10-1961 after attaining majority on 4-10-1960 against his different tenants under Section 36 read with S, 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for personal cultivation were rejected by the Additional Tahsildar on 30-5-1964 and the order is confirmed in appeal and revision. According to the concurrent orders, the petitioner failed to prove that the lands sought to be resumed constituted the principal source of his income. This finding, among others, is based on the fact that the petitioner acquired about 40 acres of land and sums of Rupees 20,000/-, Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-on different dates during the pendency of the proceeding. In spite of some contrary observations of the Revenue Tribunal, it is not disputed before us that this property was acquired by the petitioner after institution of proceeding. According to the petitioner, such subsequent developments cannot be taken into account. Opinion on this point was found to have been divided. Hence this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) The question referred to the Full Bench may be quoted as follows:

(3.) Now, these are applications under Section 38 (2) of the Act. The respondents are not the occupancy tenants. The landlord can terminate the teancy either under Sub-section (1) or (2) by (a) serving notice and (b) making application for possession before the date or the period prescribed. But this can be done only if he (i) requires the land (ii) requires bona fide, and (iii) requires for personal cultivation. Mere requirement of land is not enough, nor even mere bona fide requirement, unless the same is for personal cultivation. Even if such requirement exists, such resumption still depends on a few additional conditions enumerated in Section 38 (3), namely, that (i) he does not have any land under his personal cultivation and if he has any, it is less than three family holdings, (ii) such land happens to be his principal source of income, (iii) he is shown to be the holder in the record-of-rights and on the specified date, (iv) the tenants a liable to be affected are comparatively junior. All the conditions are cumulative. Sub-sections (4) to (6) deal with the area of land required to be left with the tenant, immunity from further resumption and apportionment of rent. Landlords owners of land after August 1953 are prevented from resuming the land if the tenant had already become a protected lessee before the date of his becoming owner.