DEVAJI LIMBAJI Vs. GANPATLAL SHIVDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant -tenant and it arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, East Berar, Amravati, in Civil Appeal No. 60 -A of 1953 which, in its turn, arose out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Yeotmal, in Civil Suit No. 8 -A of 1953. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff -landlord. On appeal by the defendant -tenant, the learned District Judge substantially confirmed the decree of the trial Court in so far as it related to the ejectment of the defendant -tenant and dismissed the appeal of the tenant. From that decree the tenant has appealed, and this is that appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff -landlord has filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendant -tenant. The defendant -tenant took survey No, 56 of mouza Yeotmal on lease from the father of the plaintiff for the year 1950 -51. The plaintiff contends that the defendant failed to hand over possession of the field on the expiry of the period of lease. The period of the lease which was a lease for the year 1950 -51 expired on March 31, 1951, and the plaintiff says that the defendant failed to give back the possession of the land to him or his father on March 31, 1951. It is not disputed that the lease of the year 1950 -51 was a lease for a year only. The lease is exh. P -15. There is also no dispute that the plaintiff called upon the defendant to hand over possession on the expiry of the term of the batai agreement on April 1, 1951. The plaintiff admits to have received a batai share of the crops from the defendant for the year 1950 -51, and he claims an enquiry into the mesne profits for the period subsequent to April 1, 1951, till delivery of possession. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on September 17, 1951.

(3.) THE second contention upon which the defendant has resisted the suit of the plaintiff is a contention based upon the provisions of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (XXIV of 1951) as amended by Act No. XXII of 1953. Reliance is put upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, and it is contended by the defendant that he is a protected lessee of this land. Reliance is next put on Section 16 of the Act, and it is contended that if any dispute arises in regard to a lease, such a dispute has to be decided not by the civil Court but by the Revenue Officer. Section 16, Sub -section (1), of the Act provides: Whenever any question arises whether any transaction between a landholder and a person claiming to be his lessee is a lease within the meaning of this Act, such question shall be decided by the Revenue Officer. It is the contention of the defendant in this case that he was a lessee for the year 1951 -52 also, and upon such a contention being raised, the defendant says that the question at issue cannot be decided by the civil Court, tout must be decided by the Revenue Officer as provided by Section 16, Sub -section (1), of the Act. It is upon these contentions that the suit of the plaintiff is resisted by the defendant -tenant.