DAGADU RAMA MALI Vs. PANDURANG GOVIND MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question argued before me on behalf of the petitioner is whether the application filed by the respondents was maintainable under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The question arises under the following facts :

(2.) DECEASED respondent No. 2- Yeshwada w/o Nevratti Mali was the landlady widow on 1-4-1957 in respect of land comprising R. S. No. 347/2 now Block No. 1290 admeasuring O. H.- 19 acres, assessed at Rs. 0-15, situated at village Lengore, Tahsil Khanapur, District Sangli. The said land was held by the tenant one Pandurang Govind Mali respondent No. 1. Since the landlady was widow on the tillers day, proceedings started under section 32-G were dropped till the postponed expiry period as laid down in section 32-F of the Tenancy Act. During this period in 1967 the landlady (widow) sold this land to the petitioner and who started obstructing the enjoyment of the land by the tenant. The tenant then applied under section 70 (b) for a declaration that he is a tenant of the suit premises. The matter went up to High Court and it has been finally established that he has been a tenant of the suit land. There was also a recording in the Register of 7/12 extract that he was in possession during the years 1952-53 upto the year 1958-59 as a tenant. Thereafter, the cultivation has been shown in the name of the landlady from the year 1959-60 onwards, meaning thereby the tenants was dispossessed. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was the tenant 1-4-1957. Since he was dispossessed by the transferee of the landlady, the filed proceedings under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter cited the Tenancy Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Walwa Division, Sangli and by his order dated 28-1-1982, the land was ordered to be restored to the 1st respondent. Against this order, the petitioner filed Review before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur bearing No. M. R. T. S. S. 37/82. The Revenue Authority by its order dated 17-6-1983 dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. He approached this Court by way of this writ petition challenging these orders.

(3.) AS pointed out by me in the earlier part of the judgment, the only point regarding maintainability of the petition filed under section 84 of the Tenancy Act was argued before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. G. Karandikar. He submits that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 was not maintainable under section 84 of the Act, though such an application would have been maintainable under section 29 of the Act. In support of this contention, he cited various decisions of this Court and Supreme Court. In order to understand the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner, we have to refer to sections 29 and 84. It is contended that since the 1st respondent had to establish the right, under the provisions of the Tenancy Act the proper course open to him was to apply under section 29 and therefore application under section 84 is not maintainable. The authorities below should have rejected, the application for having no jurisdiction to entertain the same.