BAJIRAO MARUTI DHUMAL Vs. SHANKAR YALLAPPA MANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by one of us (Kotwal, J.) to the Division Bench, for a correct interpretation of section 32(1 -B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Another learned Single Judge (Tulpule, J.) has taken the view that the mortgages from the landlord is not a successor -in -interest of the landlord and hence the dispossessed tenant is not entitled to the restoration of the land under the said provision. With this view my brother Kotwal, J., has differed and by his reasoned judgment has referred the matter for answering the following two questions - - -

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point involved, it is necessary to state the relevant admitted facts. The respondent was a tenant of the agricultural land in question belonging to the petitioner and was in possession and cultivation of the same as such tenant on 15 -6 -1956 i.e. the appointed day. Some time prior to the tillers day i.e. 1st April, 1957 he was dispossessed by the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section 29 of the Act.

(3.) ALL the three authorities below granted the relief to the tenant and against their decision the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.