MALLASHA SAYABANNA MANGONDA Vs. KHADIR AJAM AHERWADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order made by the Assistant Collector under Section 84(c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948) and confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal. The short facts leading to the present application are as follows: The land in suit belonged to one Dhondi Abaji who was cultivating - the land by himself right until his death. It appears that he had created a mortgage on the property and the mortgagee obtained a decree for recovery of the mortgage amount. Eventually, the property 'was put to auction and in execution proceedings the petitioner on November 4, 1950, purchased the: same. As respondent No. 1 claimed to be in possession of the property on his own account, the petitioner could not successfully obtain physical possession under Order XXI, Rule 95, 'Civil Procedure Code. As soon as the sale was confirmed and respondent No. 1 came to know that the property was sold in execution proceedings, he made an application to the Assistant Collector, Sholapur, under Section 84 (c) of the Act claiming that he was a tenant on the land and that the purchase by the petitioner was void. This application was rejected on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not a tenant and that he could not make the application under Section 84(c) of the Act. This judgment was confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal and by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1547 of 1963 decided on November 13, 1964. In those proceedings respondent No. 1 had admitted that he did not know who the

(2.) AFTER that matter was finally decided, the petitioner made an application to the Assistant Collector under Section 84(c) of the Act for summary eviction of respondent No. 1. The Assistant Collector held that he had no jurisdiction to evict respondent No. 1 under Section 84 (c) of the Act as respondent No. 1 was not in wrongful possession by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1948. The Revenue Tribunal confirmed this judgment.

(3.) THE Assistant Collector seemed to be of the view that in order to succeed, the petitioner must show that respondent No. I is in wrongful possession by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1'948. The Revenue Tribunal said that the Tenancy Act was meant to resolve disputes between landlord and tenant and such disputes as are raised with the help of the tenant or the landlord, hut, as respondent No. 1 was held to he a trespasser, the petitioner should approach civil Court.