SHIVAGIR RAMGIR GOSAVI Vs. SHRINIVAS KESHALAL PALOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is aimed against a finding recorded by the competent authority upon a reference made to that authority under Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - hereinafter referred to as the "Act" or "Tenancy Act".

(2.) For determination of the crucial questions that arise in this petition, it will be necessary to state a few facts : -

(3.) For the plaintiffs, it is submitted that the deed of 1946 clearly shows that the lease was for non-agricultural purposes. What was done subsequently by the defendants was a contravention of the lease. They could not by a unilateral act of theirs, creats a lease governable by the Tenancy Act. Extraneous factors had been taken into consideration, and, that was why the Tahsidar as also the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred. In reply, the contention is thit irrespective of how parties to the deed understood the purpose of the lease, the same was agricultural and not non-agricultural. Next, even assuming that the purpose of the land was non-agricultual, from the very inception, the land had been put to agricultural use. After expiry of first 10 years, the defendants continued to use it for agricultural purposes. Plaintiffs had not only acquiesced, but permitted this user. It was not, therefore, open to them to now turn back and claim that putting the land to agricultural purposes, was a contravention of the lease. Thirdly, at a later stage, the land had vested in a Public Trust. Trustees of that Trust had applied under Section 88-B of the Act for being exempted from the operation of certain stringent portions thereof. The application having been moved, it was not now open to the plaintiffs to contend that the lease was not governed by the Tenancy Act. In fact, the reference having been made and, plaintiffs having failed to get the reference set aside, concluded the issue in favour of the defendants. In other words, but for the fact that the land was agricultural land, and the lease was for an agricultural purpose within the meaning of the Act, a reference would have been made. Plaintiffs had tried to contend the contrary, and, failed even before this Court in an earlier writ petition. Therefore, it was not now open to them to say that the lease was not for a purpose governable by the Tenancy Act. The village papers showed that the land had been used for cultivation, and, to that effect was the evidence led by the defendants. Plaintiffs had not led evidence to establish the contrary. The statutory Courts had held the lease-deed to incorporate a lease governable by the Act. This finding was fortified by a consideration of the evidence. It was not, therefore, open to this Court acting under Article 227 to reverse the said finding.