BASANTIBAI Vs. NARAYAN KISAN KHADASANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, on 27-7-1988, upsetting the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Jamod dated 28-1-1987, is challenged.

(2.) ONE Basantibai, original petitioner, now deceased and represented by the present petitioner (for short the landlady) admittedly owned field Survey No. 6 admeasuring 13 acres 13 gunthas of land at village Pimpri Adgaon, Tahsil Sangrampur. One Smt. Manjulabai was the tenant in the said land on behalf of the landlady and for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the tenant did not pay any lease amount and, therefore, the landlady sent a notice to Manjulabai, but the said notice was returned with endorsement that Smt. Manjulabai was dead. One Narayan Kisan Khadsane, the original respondent (since deceased and now represented by respondent Nos. 1-A, 1-B and 1-C) claiming his rights as tenant on the basis of the will executed by Manjulabai, sent the amount by way of money order to the landlady, which the landlady accepted under protest. An application was filed by the landlady under section 120 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short the Tenancy Act of 1958), seeking eviction of Narayan, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly occupying and wrongfully in possession of the land owned by the landlady. The application filed by the landlady under section 120 of the Tenancy Act of 1958 was contested by Narayan. Inter alia, plea was set out by Narayan in the additional pleas that by the registered Will dated 15-1-1981, which was the last Will of Manjulabai, the rights of tenancy in the said land have been bequeathed to him and, therefore, his possession was neither unauthorised nor he was occupying the said land illegally. Thus, Narayan submitted in the written statement that the application filed by the landlady under section 120 of the Tenancy Act of 1958 deserved to be dismissed.

(3.) AFTER holding the inquiry, the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Jamod, by an order dated 28-1-1987 held that Narayan was in wrongful possession of the aforesaid agricultural land owned by the landlady and the landlady was entitled to eviction order and consequently directed that Narayan be evicted from the aforesaid field and the landlady be put in possession. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Jamod, on 28-1-1987 was challenged by way of revision by Narayan before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by an order dated 27-7-1988 allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Jamod, on 28-1-1987. The only reason given by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, upsetting the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was that the original tenant Manjulabai had executed Will in favour of Narayan, who was the son of the real brother of Manjulabai, and since Manjulabai was a widow and had no male issue, according to the will, Narayan had succeeded Manjulabai under section 54 of the Tenancy Act of 1958, and all the tenancy rights of Manjulabai had been inherited by Narayan.