ABDUL REHAMAN SAJANBHAI BAGWAN Vs. YESHWANT RAGHAVENDRA PURANDHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 6-9-1983 affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati on 31-3-1980 and the order passed by Additional Tahasildar and A. L. T. Purandhar on 30-6-1978 is a subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) SHRI Abdul Rehaman Sajanbhai Bagwan (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) was tenant of the present respondent Shri Yeshwant Raghavendra Purandhare in respect of various lands including Gat No. 892 situated at village Khalad. On Tillers day i. e. 1-4-1957, the tenant became deemed purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended from time to time. The tenant purchased the lands of which he became deemed purchaser except Gat No. 892 which he declined to purchase. As a result thereof the purchase relating to Gat No. 892 became ineffective. It appears that in the year 1968, the former tenant surrendered the possession of Gat No. 892 and the former landlord was put in possession. The proceedings were initiated under section 32-P of the Tenancy Act and after service the former landlord as well as the former tenant appeared before the Additional Tahasildar and A. L. T. Purandhar. In the proceedings the former tenant did not dispute the factum of surrender of possession of Gat No. 892 in favour of former landlord and the fact that after the former landlord was put in possession he was cultivating the land personally. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 32-P were disposed of by Additional Tahasildar and A. L. T. Purandhar by holding that possession of the former landlord over Gat No. 892 was proper and that in the revenue record the name of the former tenant appearing as Kabjedar be deleted and in its place name of former landlord be substituted. The order passed by the Additional Tahasildar and A. L. T. Purandhar on 30-6-1978 was challenged by the former tenant in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division without any success and the S. D. O. , Baramti Division dismissed the appeal. In the meanwhile the former tenant had died and his legal representatives challenged the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Tahasildar and A. L. T. Purandhar in revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal also dismissed the revision on 6-10-1983 giving rise to the present writ petition.

(3.) MR. Sali, the learned Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of deceased former tenant submitted that the surrender made by the former tenant in favour of the former landlord in the year 1968 was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the said surrender was no surrender in the eye of law. According to Mr. Sali, the possession could have only been surrendered in the mode and manner provided in section 15 of the Tenancy Act and since the surrender was not in accord with section 15, the said surrender has no legal effect and, therefore, the former tenant or for that matter after his death his legal representatives are entitled to restoration of possession. In support of his contentions Mr. Sali relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in (Amrit Bhikali Kale and others v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and another) 1983 (3) S. C. C. 437. (Mohamed Abdul Naik v. Anant Hari Nadgonda) Tenancy Law Reporter 1975 Vol. XXIII Page 83, and (Mahadeo Sitaram v. Ramachandra S. Yadav) 1973 Vol. XXI Tenancy Law Reporter, page 79.