MARUTI MANKU PATIL Vs. WAMAN TRIMBAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are tenants and the first respondent is the landlord and he filed an application before the Mamlatdar based on a notice given by him on 22nd March 1952 terminating the tenancy as from 31st March 1953 on the ground that he required the lands for his personal cultivation.

(2.) TWO questions arose before the Revenue Tribunal and which has been agitated before us. One was whether the Amending Act 33 of 1952 which came into force on the 12th January 1953 before the notice expired had application. In view of the recent Full Bench decision it is clear that the rights of the parties must be governed by the Amending Act. The only contention with regard to the Amending Act put forward by the tenant was that the landlord was only entitled to half the area of the land leased under Section 34 (2a) (3) of the Tenancy Act. That raises a question of fact and we will remand this matter to the Mamlatdar to decide whether the landlord's holding was more than the holding described in the explanation. If his holding is more then he will get benefit of the provisions of Section 34 (2a) (3), otherwise the landlord will be entitled to the whole of the land leased to the tenant.

(3.) THE other contention raised by the tenant was based on a notification issued by Government on the 21st February 1952. This notification purported to be issued under Section 36 (2) and the Tribunal has held that the notification is ultra vires of the State Government. The scheme of Section 36 (1) and (2) is this. Under Section 34 the limit of the holding of the landlord is laid down as fifty acres. If the landlord has more than fifty acres then he cannot get possession from the tenant on the ground of his requiring the land for personal cultivation. Section 36 (1) empowers the Government to reduce the limit of fifty acres, and Sub-section (2) provides: