DAGADU SHIVRAO TILEKAR Vs. KACHARUSHAH MOHAMMAD SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions are decided and disposed of by this common judgment as they arise against the same order and between the same parties.

(2.) WRIT Petition No.3023/1989 is filed by the tenant while the other writ petition is by the landlord. The facts leading to this litigation can be stated in short, thus : One Kachrushah Mohammadshah was the original landlord of Survey No.30/a/B/a and 30/2A of Kopergaon Dist. Ahmednagar. Out of these lands, an area of 22 Acres was leased out by Kachrushah in 1944 to the tenant. The landlord filed an application u/s 29/31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for personal cultivation. It was numbered as Tenancy Case No.10/1965 and was dismissed by the trial Court. The matter was then taken in Tenancy Appeal No.107/1974 which was allowed by an order dated 31-12-1975 and the case was remanded back for re-trial. After remand, the proceeding was numbered as Tenancy Case No.53/1975 and the Taluka Awal Karkoon, Kopergaon by an order dated 29-6-1977 allowed it and granted the entire property to the landlord for personal cultivation. The matter was then taken up in Tenancy Appeal No.14/1978 by the tenant, but it came to be dismissed by an order dated 20-7-1978. The tenant then took up the matter to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision Application No.1/1978 and by an order dated 16-10-1980, the revision is partly allowed and the possession of 1/2 portion of the property was ordered to be handed over to landlord. This order of the Revenue Tribunal dated 16-10-1980 satisfying none and dissatisfying both has given rise to these two writ petitions. In WRIT Petition No.3044/1989, the landlord seeks the possession of the entire property while the tenant in WRIT Petition No.3023/1989 claims that the landlord is entitled to nothing. Inasmuch as these two WRIT Petitions arise out of the same proceedings and are between the same parties and involve common question, they are being decided and disposed of by this common Judgment.

(3.) SHRI. Karmarkar, the learned counsel for the legal heirs of deceased landlord, has invited the attention to ruling of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim (AIR 1984 Supreme Court, 38) wherein jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is declared as limited : "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law." Reliance is also placed by SHRI Karmarkar, learned counsel for the legal heirs of deceased landlord on ruling of this Court in R.J.Mehta Vs. Charandas Meghji (1989 Bombay Rent Cases, 83) wherein "suit or proceeding" contemplated u/s 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1987, has been held as not including the writ petitions. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the L.Rs. of deceased landlord that both the writ petitions are required to be decided on the basis of the evidence on record as it stands today and no re-trial should, therefore, be ordered.