NEMCHAND CHUNILAL GUJAR Vs. BHIMRAO ANNA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Spl. C.A. No. 1719/66. Petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 1719 of 1966, Nemchand Chunilal Gujar, is the owner of survey Nos. 296/1, 296/2 and 295 situated at village Jakhale, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur. One Anna Patil, the ancestor of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, was the tenant of these lands. Kemchand obtained an order against the original tenant, Anna Patil, for possession under section 34 read with section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, as it then stood, on Sept. 6, 1954, in Tenancy Case No. 95/1954 and in execution of the said order got possession of these lands on Feb. 15, 1955. For some time Nemchand cultivated these lands personally. However, some time during the year 1962-63 Nemehand leased out the said lands to Dhondiram Akaram, Anna Akaram and Nana Akatam, Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in Special Civil Application No. 1719 of 1966, and subsequently sold these lands to them under a registered sale deed on April 5, 1963.

(2.) The tenant, Anna Patil, died in the meanwhile on Oct. 30, 1960, leaving behind him three sons and a widow, i. e., respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in Special Civil Application No. 1719 of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as heirs of the tenant). The heirs of the tenant made an application to the Tenancy Aval Karkun, Panhala, on Sept. 27, 1963, for possession of these lands under section 37 read with section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948, alleging therein that petitioner No. 1, Nemchand, had leased out and then sold these lands in dispute without cultivating the same personally, in contravention of section 37 of the Act and as the tenancy of the lands, on the same terms and conditions on which the lands were held by their ancestor, Anna Patil, was not offered to them, they were entitled to possession of the lands together with compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of eviction.

(3.) This application by the heirs of the tenant was resisted by the present petitioners, i. e., the original landlord and the present purchasers of the lands on various grounds, one of them being that heirs of the tenant were not entitled to claim back possession under sections 37 and 39 of the Tenancy Act. The case was decided against the petitioners by order dated Aug. 30, 1964 and the Tenancy Aval Karkun allowed the application of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and directed that they be put in possession of the lands in dispute and that the petitioners should pay Rs. 4,237 as compensation for loss to the heirs of the tenant from the date of eviction, i. e., Feb. 15, 1955. Their appeal to the Special Deputy Collector, Tenancy Appeals, Kolhapur, was dismissed on April 30, 1965. On revision by the present petitioners to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the order in regard to the delivery of possession was confirmed, but the order in regard to the claim for compensation for the loss suffered by the tenants on account of eviction has been modified. According to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, this compensation IB liable to be paid only as a result of the breach committed by the landlord and, therefore, the claim for compensation was restricted only as against petitioner No. 1, i. e., the original landlord, and he was directed to pay compensation only from the year 1962 onwards and not for the period from Feb. 15, 1955. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also made some directions as to how the compensation should be computed and has remanded the case back for determination of the compensation in the light of the observations made in the judgment.