SK. HUSSAIN GULAB Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by the defendant in a civil suit whose plea of tenancy has been negatived by the three Revenue Tribunals.

(2.) THE land in dispute is survey No. 3/1, measuring 5 acres 19 gunthas, of mouza Kamunja, taluq and district Amravati. Respondent No. 4 is admittedly the owner of that land. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of that land. Respondent No. 4 filed a civil suit for recovery of possession, on the ground that the land in question was let out to the petitioner for the mere purpose of cutting grass for a limited period of one year. Such contract was repeated. However, at the end of the period, whatever rights the petitioner had, came to an end and the owner was entitled to recover possession. In such a suit, the petitioner filed a written statement in which he pleaded tenancy rights. An issue about the tenancy of the petitioner was framed by the Civil Court and referred to the Revenue Courts.

(3.) THIS petition raises an interesting point of law and it appears that there is no prior judgment of this Court concluding this point. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, claims that the petitioner becomes a tenant under the new Tenancy Act by reason of his status as a protected lessee under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act. The definition of 'tenant' in the present Act is to be found at Clause (32) of Section 2. 'Tenant' has been defined to mean a person who holds land on lease and includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the provisions of Sections 6, 7 or 8 and a person who is a protected lessee or occupancy tenant. The reference to the expression 'protected lessee' in the definition of the new Tenancy Act is undoubtedly a reference to the protected lessee conceived of by the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act of 1951. All the three Revenue Courts have rejected the claim of the petitioner by reference to the explanation to Section 6. By looking to the receipt and the admission of the owner, it is found by the Revenue Courts that the petitioner happens to be in lawful possession of the land. Will the mere lawful cultivation of the land make him a tenant ? Section 6 of the present Tenancy Act creates a deemed tenancy where a person is lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person. What is meant by 'land' is defined in Clause (17) of Section 2 and what is meant by 'to cultivate' is also defined in Clause (11) of Section 2 of the present Tenancy Act. 'Land' has been defined to mean 'land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes' and includes the sites of farm buildings appurtenant to such land etc. The entire definition need not be noted because it is obvious that a land, which grows grass naturally, is capable of being brought under cultivation. What' is meant by 'to cultivate' according to Clause (11) is 'to carry on any agricultural operation'. What is meant by 'agricultural operation' can be seen from the definition of 'agriculture' in Clause (1) of Section 2. It is an inclusive definition which includes in it, among others, the use by an agriculturist of the land held by him or a part thereof for grazing of his own cattle. According to this definition, an agricultural operation would mean merely grazing one's own cattle upon the land held by the tenant. If this is so, then the person doing that, would be deemed to be cultivating the land. A person merely feeding his cattle being a person in lawful cultivation of the land, would be a deemed tenant under Section 6.