PARVATIBAI Vs. SHANKAR MAHADU VARKHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions involve a common question of law and can be conveniently decided by a common judgment. The question involved is whether the right of a certificated landlord to apply under section 33b of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for possession of land from an excluded tenant is personal to the certificated landlord and lapses on his death or whether it can be exercised by his successor in interest.

(2.) THE facts involved are very simple. In Special Civil Application No. 1878 of 1964 one Ramchandra obtained a certificate under section 88c of the said Act. After his death his widow, who is the petitioner before us, gave notice terminating the tenancy of the excluded tenant and applied for possession of the leased land under section 33b on 27th March 1962. Her application was allowed by the Tenancy Aval Karkun and the decision was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Collector. The Manarashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside these decisions and dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that she was not entitled to apply for possession under section 33b as she was not herself a certificated landlord. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this decision of the Revenue Tribunal.

(3.) IN Special Civil Application No. 1962 of 1964 a certificate under section 88c was obtained by a widow Vithabai. On the death of Vithabai in September 1961 the title to the excluded land passed under Vithabai's will to her husband's sister Kamalabai, who is the petitioner before us The petitioner gave a notice to the excluded tenant terminating his tenancy of the leased land and filed an application for possession under section 33b on 19th March 1962. The application was allowed by the Tenancy Aval Karkun and the decision was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Collector. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside these decisions and dismissed the petitioner's application for possession on the ground that she was not entitled to apply under section 33b as she was not herself a certificated landlord. The validity of this decision of the Revenue Tribunal has been challenged before us by the petitioner.