BANDU CHADGE Vs. GULSHANBI KARBHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants petition against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Poona, dismissing the application for revision filed by the petitioner against the appellate order passed by the District Deputy Collector, Satara, dismissing the appeal of petitioners against the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Patan directing that the lands held by the petitioners under tenancy rights be restored to the respondent.

(2.) Survey Nos. 331, 332 and 338/2 situate at Mhavashi, Taluka Patan, District Satara, originally belonged to the deceased Kondibhai. Bandu and deceased Shidu, whose legal representatives have been brought on record, were the tenants of these fields. Kondibhai filed an application under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the "Tenancy Act") before the Mamlatdar, Patan, for a certificate that provisions of sections 32 to 32-R of the Tenancy Act were not applicable to these lands. The Mamlatdar, after enquiry, issued a certificate on 11th November, 1959. Soon thereafter Kondibhai died on 23rd December, 1959 without filing an application for possession under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act. The respondent and one Asbabi-her co-widow, their two sons and 5 daughters inherited the property of Kondibhai. However, the respondent alone filed an application under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act. It was her case that the property in suit was gifted to her by her deceased husband. While those proceedings were going on, she filed an application on 16th October, 1962 for withdrawal of her application. The Mamlatdar dismissed her application filed under section 88-C on 17th October, 1962 on the ground that she did not press the application. The respondent thereafter issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioners and then filed an application under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act on 31st December, 1962 on the basis of certificate obtained by her deceased husband.

(3.) The petitioners resisted the claim of the respondent for possession. It was the case of the petitioners that the application was barred by time in-as-much as it was not filed within the period prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 33-B of the Tenancy Act, as neither the notice of termination of tenancy was given before 1st January, 1962 nor was the application filed before 1st April, 1962. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, after completing the enquiry, held that the petition was within time inasmuch as it was filed within three months after the dismissal of her application under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act. He held that the certificate obtained by her husband can be seemed to have been obtained on the date of the dismissal of her application. An appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, so also the application for revision was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed.