PANDURANG NARAYAN NATHE Vs. RAMCHANDRA MAROTI JAWARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on 1st March 1973 directing the petitioner to place respondent No. 1 in possession of the land in dispute. Both these petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties to these petitions it would be convenient to state the facts leading to the present petitions, in brief. The land bearing S. No. 522/2 admeasuring 1 acre 12 gunthas and situated within the municipal limits of Akot belongs to respondent No. 1, He had leased it out to the petitioner on 9th February 1954 under a Kabulayat for an annual rental of Rs. 150/-. This lease was for a duration of one year. However, the petitioner continued on the land as tenant. On 8th February 1969 respondent No. 1 served a notice on the petitioner terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to hand over possession of the land to him (respondent No. 1). The grounds on which the tenancy was sought to be terminated were that the petitioner had let out the land to his brother Baliram, that the period of lease had expired and possession was illegal, that respondent No. 1 required the land bona fide for his personal cultivation and that he also required the land for nonagricultural user. Since the petitioner did not comply with the notice, respondent No. 1 moved the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar of Akot by filing an application purporting to be under Section 58 (3) (c) read with Section 36 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this application also respondent No. 1 alleged that the period of lease had expired and possession of the petitioner thereafter was illegal, that the petitioner had sublet the land to Baliram and that the land was required for bona fide non-agricultural purpose as he wanted to start dairy business and construct his own residential house. With regard to the termination of tenancy on the ground of requirement of the land for bona fide personal cultivation respondent No. 1 stated in his application that the period of the notice had not yet expired and, therefore, he would reserve his right for filing separate application. Baliram, to whom the land was alleged to have been sublet by the petitioner, was impleaded in this application along with the petitioner. He appeared in the proceeding and by his written statement filed on 2nd Dec. 1969 he said that he was never in possession of the land and he had never cultivated it either as a sub-lesseee or in any other capacity. According to him, the land was being cultivated by the petitioner alone from the commencement of the tenancy. The petitioner also contested the claim of, respondent No. 1 for possession of the land on the various grounds stated above. He denied all the allegations made against him in the application and submitted that respondent No. 1 did not need the land either for personal cultivation or for non-agricultural use as alleged by him. On these pleadings the Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar framed various issues and the parties went to trial. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced by respondent No. 1 and the petitioner in support of their respective contentions. By his order dated 19th Jan. 1971 the Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar rejected the application of respondent No. 1 for possession of the land, holding that the latter had failed to establish the grounds on which he sought possession. Being aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 1 preferred appeal before the Special Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, at Akola (hereinafter referred to as 'the Deputy Collector'). The Deputy Collector concurred with the findings of the Naib-Tahsildar with regard to all the points except on the point of sub-letting. The Deputy Collector held that the Naib-Tahsildar had not properly appreciated the evidence on record in this respect and had failed to examine the Patwari who had recorded the name of Baliram in crop statements for the years 1958-59 to 1960-61. The Deputy Collector, therefore, remanded the matter to the Naib-Tahsildar with a direction that the Patwari concerned should be examined on the relevant points and fresh finding should be recorded on the point of sub-letting. Thus the Deputy Collector partly allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 both preferred revision application to the Tribunal. Both these revision applications were heard together and by a common order passed by the Tribunal on 1st March 1973 it allowed the revision application filed by respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner to put him in possession of the land leased. In the view which it took, the Tribunal rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners. It is against this order that these two writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) To recapitulate again it may be stated here that respondent No. 1 sought possession of the land from the petitioner on four grounds, namely, (1) that the petitioner had sub-let the land to Baliram, (2) that he had committed default in payment of rent, (3) that he required the land for bona fide personal cultivation and (4) that he required the land for non-agricultural user. It would be convenient to take these grounds one by one and see if the finding of the Tribunal on them can be sustained,