CHINDHA NATHU GUJAR Vs. MURLIDHAR SHANKAR GUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-tenant in the present matter has come up before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 22nd April, 1983 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay in Revision Application No. Ten. A. 22g of 1982 arising out of the judgment and order dated 31-8-1982 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon in Division Jalgaon in Tenancy Appeal No. 3/1981 which, in turn, arose out of the judgment and order dated 12-1-1981 passed by Tahsildar, Chalisgaon in Tenancy Case No. 2/73 which was initiated on the basis of an application under section 25 (2) and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

(2.) FIELD Survey No. 73 admeasuring 21 acres and 17 gunthas assessed to Rs. 74. 69 situated at Ozar village, Tq. Chalisgaon is the subject-matter of the present petition. The undisputed fact is that the present respondent-landlord was holding this land as Patil Inam land on which the petitioner was a tenant. It is also not disputed that the respondent-landlord did secure possession of half portion of the above-said field Survey in accordance with the provisions of section 29 read with section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenancy Act", for the purposes of brevity ). Thus, it is half of the Field Survey No. 73 referred to above, with which we are concerned now in this dispute, which was held as a tenant by the petitioner.

(3.) APPLICATION under sections 25 (2) and 29 of the Tenancy Act was filed by the respondent on 30th November 1972 to recover the possession on the ground that the tenant-petitioner was in default in making the payment of rent for the years 1969-70; 1970-71 and 1971-72 inspite of the intimations given to the tenant. In support of his contention, the respondent-landlord did produce certain documents on the record as well as the copies of intimations. The respondent-landlord did issue notice under section 14 read with section 29 of the Act on 11-8-1972 mentioning therein that since the petitioner-tenant did fail to make the payment of rent for the years 1969-70 to 1971-72, the tenancy of the tenant to stand terminated after three months of the receipt of the notice by the tenant. This application initiated by the respondent-landlord was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 2/73 on the file of Tahsildar, Chalisgaon. The Tahsildar, Chalisgaon who dealt with the matter did frame necessary issues and after recording the necessary statements of the parties concerned, observed that the landlord did serve the tenant with a valid notice for the tenants failure in making the payment and inspite of the notice, the tenant did fail in making payment for three years. He, therefore, observed that the tenancy of the petitioner stood terminated in pursuance of the notice and that the landlord was justified in presenting an application for possession which was well within time. The learned Tahsildar, on the basis of the documents before him and pleadings, reached to the conclusion that Field Survey No. 73/1 was liable to be restored to the landlord under sections 29 (2) and (3 ). Since the order was regarding restoration of land to the landlord, the aggrieved tenant approached before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon, Division Jalgaon by way of an appeal under section 74 of the Act, which was registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 3/81. The learned authority of the lower Appellate Court observed that record did indicate that the landlord did not receive the rent for the years 1969-70; 1970-71 and 1971-72 inspite of intimations given to the tenant. The Appellate Authority further rightly observed that the application made by the landlord under section 29 (2) of the Act was well within time of two years as prescribed under the Act. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer also observed that though from the facts, it is seen that the petitioner-tenant was a defaulter, according to the learned lower Appellate Authority, section 25 (2) of the Act would give some relief to the tenant against termination for non-payment of rent and, therefore, the learned Tahsildar instead of directly restoring the land to the respondent-landlord should have followed the procedure prescribed under section 25 (1) of the Act and, according to which the Mamlatdar should have called upon the petitioner-tenant to tender to the landlord the rent in arrears together with the cost of the proceedings within three months from the date of the order. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and sent the matter back to the Tahsildar for initiating or starting proceedings under section 25 (1) of the Tenancy Act, by his order dated 31st August, 1982. Against this order of the lower Appellate authority, the present respondent-landlord approached before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay vide Revision Application No. Ten. A. 22 G of 1982 challenging the order on various grounds and precisely argued before the M. R. T. that it was an established finding of fact on the record that the tenant was a defaulter for the years 1969-70 to 1971-72 and further that inspite of due intimations, no rent was paid and the tenancy stood terminated and the landlord was entitled for restoration of possession was ordered by the Tahsildar , Chalisgaon. The learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, therefore, set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer i. e. appellate authority and restored the order passed by the Tahsildar. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court in the present petition.