VISHNU KONDIBA SAPTE Vs. NATHU MAHADEV PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURVEY Nos. 14/1 and 14/2 of Pisavare, Taluk Bhor, originally belonged to Shripati Buvaji Khopade and Sadu Shripati Khopade. Vishnu Kondiba Sapte was at the material time the protected tenant, having been upon the said lands for over 20 years. On August 16, 1949, the original owners and the landlords -Khopades, executed a sale -deed in respect of the said lands in favour of Nathu Mahadev Pradhan and others for a consideration of Rs. 5,000. After taking the aforesaid sale -deed, Nathu Mahadev Pradhan and others (who will be hereafter called purchasers) attempted to take possession of the lands from the protected tenant, Vishnu Kondiba Sapte. The protected tenant, however, resisted their attempts and filed a wahiwati suit being wahiwati suit No. 6/1949 for an injunction restraining the purchasers from causing obstruction to his enjoyment and possession. The injunction asked for by him was granted to him under the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The order of the Mamlatdar was confirmed by the Prant Officer in revision. Thereafter on January 19, 1951, the purchasers gave a notice to the protected tenant terminating his protected tenancy and calling upon him not to cultivate the lands from April 1, 1952. Two suits were then filed by the purchasers for possession of the lands, but they came to be dismissed on the ground that the sale -deed taken by them was invalid.

(2.) WHEN the Amending Act, 1956, introduced Section 84A in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the purchasers made an application to the Mamlatdar of Bhor under the said section stating that they were willing to pay a penalty of Rs. 100 and prayed that the Mamlatdar be pleased to issue a certificate that their transfer of September 16, 1949, was not invalid.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the purchasers preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 53/56 -57. The District Deputy Collector, before whom the appeal came on for hearing, held that the transfer in favour of the purchasers did not result in the actual eviction of the tenant and that, therefore, the purchasers were entitled to the certificate under Sub -section (2) of Section 84A, Accordingly, he allowed the appeal on December 28, 1956.