VISHNU NARAYAN DIVAN Vs. GOVIND CHUDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of two fields bearing Revision Survey Nos. 238 and 239 of the village Annur in the Kagal Taluka of the Kolhapur District. The first opponent is a tenant of these lands which were let out to him at an annual rent of Rs. 1,300. The case of the petitioner is that the first opponent committed default in the payment of the amount of rent for three years, i. e. , 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. The landlord gave a notice to the first opponent terminating his tenancy and eventually filed Tenancy Suit No. 233 of 1955 to recover possession under S. 29 (2) read with S. 14 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In answer to the suit, the first opponent filed a written statement, in which he alleged that he had improved the land by constructing a well, that he was keeping with him cattle of the applicant for the purpose of grazing and that no receipt was given to him by the applicant for payment of the rent.

(2.) THE Mamlatdar of Kagal, who heard the suit, held, inter alia, that the defaults were proved and made an order in favour of the landlord, directing that possession of the suit lands should be handed over to the petitioner-landlord. The first opponent appealed, and in appeal, the District Deputy Col lector affirmed the order made by the Mamlatdar and dismissed the tenant's appeal. The tenant then applied in revision before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal made an order, setting aside the orders of the authorities below and granting the first opponent relief from forfeiture. It is the correctness of this order which the landlord has challenged upon this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) MR. M. V. Paranjape, appearing for the landlord, contends that in view of the concurrent finding of the Mamlatdar and of the District Deputy Collector in appeal that the default of the first opponent was intentional, it was not proper for the Bombay Revenue Tribunal to interfere with the conclusion reached by the authorities concerned. On behalf of the first opponent, however, a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. R. G. Sawant, and the objection is that this petition should be dismissed in limine on the ground that there has been, in this case, gross delay in presenting the petition and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Art. 227 of the Constitution.