RAMA PATILBA GUNJAL Vs. VITHAL TULSHIRAM GUNJAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who alleges himself to be a tenant on the field Survey No. 403, situated at village Daithana Gunjal with an area of 1 Hectare and 59 Acres, has approached this Court challenging the order, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 23rd of January, 1984, in Revision Application MRT-AH-IX-1/81 (TNC-B-361/81), whereby the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside the order, dated 13th October, 1981, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal and restored the order, dated 10-11-1980, passed by the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Parner, whereby the learned Additional Tahsildar had declared that the present petitioner-Rama Patil Gunjal is not a tenant on the field in question. The initiation of the present proceedings was on the basis of an application under section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purposes of brevity ). The respondent-landlord-Vithal Tulshiram Gunjal moved the abovesaid application under section 70 (b) of the Act for a declaration that the petitioner was not a tenant on the field in question. While making the application, which is on record, it is seen that the respondent-landlord did make a reference to the earlier application, dated 8-9-1976, on the basis of which much hue and cry was tried to be made on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, to which I will make a reference in the subsequent paragraphs of the judgment.

(2.) THE abovesaid application was registered as Case No. TNC/7013/daithana-Gunjal (which is hereinafter referred to as the village concerned for the purposes of convenience ). On notice, necessary evidence was recorded by the learned Additional Tahsildar and on having considered the evidence and documents on record, reached to the conclusion that the application made by the respondent-landlord was liable to be allowed declaring that the petitioner-tenant could not be declared as a tenant on the field in question.

(3.) DISSATISFIED with the judgment given by the Additional Tahsildar, the petitioner-tenant approached before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parner Division, Ahmednagar, by way of an appeal, which was registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 41/80 and the Appellate Authority disagreeing with the finding arrived at by the additional Tahsildar and after appreciating the evidence on record, reached to the conclusion that the Additional Tahsildar was not justified in holding that the petitioner was not a tenant on the field in question. The Appellate Authority, therefore, set aside the order, passed by the Additional Tahsildar and declared that the present petitioner happened to be a tenant on the field in question. Thereafter, naturally it was the turn of the landlord to approach before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The Revision preferred by the landlord before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal came to be decided on 23rd January, 1984 and the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, restoring the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar with a finding that the present petitioner was not a tenant on the field in question. It is now the unsuccessful alleged tenant, who has approached this Court by way of present writ petition assailing the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on various grounds, and the main amongst them being, the original application under section 70 (b) of the Act could not be said to be maintainable at the instance of the landlord and further that the declaration as is sought by the landlord could be said to be in the negative nature and such a negative declaration could not be granted by the Authority below under section 70 (b) of the Act.