MANNULAL H KASLIVAL Vs. JAIRAM A ROTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner changes the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Niphad, remanding the case with a direction that in considering the application of the landlord under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1943 (here in after called as the "Tenancy Act") the Mamlatdar should take into consideration his income of the year preceding the tillers day and not the income of the year in which he has made his application.

(2.) THE petitioner is a landlord of Survey No.45/1 admeasuring 3 acres and 23 gunthas of village Rui, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik. THE petitioner had tiled an application under section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy Act for terminating the tenancy of his tenant on the ground that he required the land bona fide for cultivating it personally. This application was finally rejected by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 16th October, 1961. While these proceedings were pending, he filed on application on 6th September, 1961 under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act for an exemption certificate. THE Mamlatdar, after completing the enquiry, issued the certificate to the petitioner. On an appeal filed by the tenant, the case was remanded to the trial Court on 14th October, 1963. After the remand, his application was dismissed by the Mamlatdar. THE petitioner then filed an appeal and the matter was again remanded to the Mamlatdar with the direction that he should consider the annual income of the petitioner for the year 1960-61. It may be mentioned that there was no disputed between the parties that the landlord held less than economic holding. THE only dispute was about the annual income. THE Mamlatdar held that the annual income of the petitioner was less than Rs. 1,500/-. He therefore, granted the certificate. THE respondent filed an appeal and the case was remanded fat the third time with the direction that the annual income for the year 1956-57 should be determined and not for the year 1960-61. It is against this judgment that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) IN the result, the petition is allowed and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside and the matter is sent back for decision to the Sub-Divisional Officer on merits. The rule is made absolute. Under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.