CHHANUBHAI KARANSANG Vs. SARDUL MANSANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rather interesting question arises as to the application of the Tenancy Act to lands situated outside the State of Bombay. The petitioner, who is the landlord, applied for possession of the land in the possession of his tenant-opponent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide requirement for Personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar held that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide requirement and dismissed his application. The Prant Officer also dismissed the application but on a different ground. The view taken by the Prant Officer was that as a landlord personally cultivated land more than fifty acres, he was not entitled to Possession under Section 34 (2) (a) of the Tenancy Act end that view of the Prant Officer was confirmed by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE area personally cultivated by the landlord, according to the finding of the Prant Officer and the Tribunal, is 55 acres and 29 gunthas and out of these 10 acres and 12 gunthas are lands situated in Saurashtra outside the State of Bombay. If 10 acres and 12 gunthas are excluded as being lands outside the State of Bombay, then the landlord does not come within the mischief of Section 34 (2) (a) and the decision of the Tribunal on this Point cannot be maintained. Therefore, the question that arises for our determination is whether in Section 34 (2) (a):

(3.) THEREFORE on a consideration of various, factors, we are of the opinion that the "other land" referred to in Section 34 (2) must be restricted to land in the State of Bombay. If that be the true view of the section, then the holding of the landlord was less than fifty acres because if we exclude the land situated in Saurashtra, in the State of Bombay he held less than fifty acres. Therefore he would not be disentitled from getting possession from his tenant under Section 34 (2 ).