PARVATIBAI TRIMBAK DESHPANDE Vs. VILASRAO BAJIRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady Parvatibai has filed this writ petition challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) dated 12th April 1982 in Revision Application No. M. R. T. P. /viii. 9/1979 (TNC. B. 232/79) thereby upsetting the decisions of Tahsildar in Tenancy Case No. WS 615 and that of Leave Reserve Deputy Collector, Pune in Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 1977 which was passed in her favour. The petitioner Parvatibai died during the pendency of this petition and her legal representatives have come on record and have continued this petition; so also respondent, Vilasrao Bajirao Patil died during the pendency of this petition and his legal representatives are brought on record.

(2.) THE necessary facts to understand the point in controversy are as follows: the suit land Survey No. 704/2 admeasuring 18 acres and 9 gunthas from village Bawda, Taluka Pandharpur, District Sholapur originally belonged to one, Namdeo Sagaji Mali. Parvatibai purchased this land from this Namdeo in the year 1945. Before that, Namdeo had leased out this land to Bajirao Keshavrao Patil, the father of original respondent for a period of 13 years. Bajirao died in the year 1970. Parvatibai filed an application on 3rd December 1971 in the Court of Tahsildar at Indapur for possession of this land on the ground of three defaults in payment of rent by the tenant and to that application all the heirs of Bajirao were added as party defendants. Only Vilasrao appeared before Tahsildar and stated that all other heirs of Bajirao have left their rights in his favour and therefore, he alone was in possession of the land. He contested that application. Tahsildar by his judgment and order dated 19th November 1976 on the evidence found that in earlier proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) the proceedings for fixation of price were dropped and the land was found given for cultivation of sugar cane and, as such, the provisions of section 32 to 32-R were not applicable as provided in section 43-A of the Tenancy Act. It was then found that the tenant committed default in payment of rent for the years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. Intimations/notices in respect of each of the defaults was given to the tenant and was received by him on 13-7-1968, 30-8-1969, 12-6-1970 and 1-7-1971. There were certain other grounds set up for claiming possession but those were held not proved. Thus on the ground of default under section 14 read with sections 25 and 29 of the Tenancy Act, the tenant rendered himself liable to be evicted and therefore, Tahsildar directed delivery of the possession of the suit land to the landlady, Parvatibai.

(3.) THIS decision of Tahsildar was challenged by Vilas Bajirao Patil by preferring Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 1977 before Leave Reserve Deputy Collector, Pune. The learned Leave Reserve Deputy Collector confirmed the findings recorded by the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal.