RAMKHILAWAN BACCHU PARDESHI Vs. ARUN NARAYAN JOJARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) , Act, 1958 u/s 120 of that Act directing eviction of the petitioner summarily from the land in question. The admitted position is that suo motu proceedings were started u/s. 48 of that Act for transfer of ownership of the land. In those proceedings, it was the case of the petitioner that his father was tenant of the land and therefore, he is entitled to conferment of ownership. That case is negatived throughout and it has been held that the father of the petitioner was not the tenant and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the ownership rights. After termination of those proceedings, present proceedings were taken by the Landlord for summarily evicting the petitioner. In those proceedings, defence of the petitioner was that it was the case of Landlord itself in suo motu proceedings that father of the petitioner was not the tenant, but was a partner in cultivation. According to the petitioner, if that be so, then the possession of the petitioner is not unauthorised and therefore, an order for his eviction u/s. 120 cannot be made. Both the Authorities have negatived this contention and have held that possession of the petitioner is unauthorised and therefore, he can be evicted under the provisions of Section 120 of the Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. I have gone through the record. In my opinion, even assuming that the father of the petitioner was partner in cultivation then also the petitioner cannot become partner in cultivation after the death of his father. At the most, he will be entitled to claim profits of the partnership business as legal representative of the deceased partner. In no case, the petitioner can claim to be entitled to be in possession of the land. On death of father of the petitioner, the partnership will come to an end and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to protection of his possession even accepting the case put up by the respondent-Landlord in the suo motu proceedings. Therefore, looking from any point of view, in my opinion, no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the Authorities below, which are concurrent in nature. In the result, therefore, the petition fails and it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs.