LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-49

RAMCHANDRA B POSUGADE Vs. SHANKAR RAMJI SURYAVANSHI

Decided On October 05, 2006
RAMCHANDRA B.POSUGADE Appellant
V/S
DINKAR BABU NALAVADE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Advocate for the Petitioner. Nobody present for the Petitioner. Petitioner is a tenant. Proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner under Sec. 32-G read with Sec. 70-B of Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Additional Tahsildar and ALT Karad. The Tahsildar held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and rejected the application. Tenant filed appeal before the Assistant Collector, Satara. This appeal was allowed. The order of Additional Tahsildar and ALT Karad was set aside and he was directed to proceed further for fixing the purchase price. The landlord thereafter preferred Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, who allowed the Revision and set aside the order of the Collector and confirmed the order of the Tahsildar and therefore, this petition.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner took me to the order of the MRT, which is at Exh.G. It is clear from the said order i.e. paragraph 6, 7 to 11 that the MRT consistently and in continuously gave finding that the Petitioner was the tenant of the suit property. Further aspect of this matter was considered in this background and repeatedly MRT held that he is a tenant. Even the documents, which were tendered on record were accepted as proof of the case of tenancy. However, surprisingly in the last paragraph, MRT held that father of the Petitioner was cultivating the suit land in the capacity as hired labour and therefore, Revision was allowed, meaning thereby that the Petitioner is not the tenant. By way of illustration, I may quote following findings in paragraph 6 - "It also appears from the record that suit lands were leased by one Janabai to the father of the present opponent in the year 1934 and since that time the opponent s father Babu was cultivating the same as tenant."