WAMAN GANESH JOSHI Vs. GANU GUNA KHAPRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURVEY No. 60 and Hissa No. 1 of survey No. 31 situate at Mouje Rai, originally belonged to one person, whose name does not appear in the record, but, who, in some execution proceedings, was the judgment -debtor. It appears that the judgment -debtor had leased the two survey numbers to opponent No. 1. In execution of a decree obtained against the judgment -debtor the two survey numbers were put up for sale and were purchased by the present petitioner in court auction on November 28, 1955. As the opponent -tenant was on the lands at the time of court auction, symbolical possession was delivered to the auction purchaser on June 15, 1956, under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 96, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) ON December 13, 1956, the petitioner gave a notice to opponent No. 1 for terminating his tenancy under the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, on the ground that he required the lands for his own personal cultivation. On March 26, 1957, the petitioner applied for possession of the lands from opponent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 29 read with Section 31(i) of the Act. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, before whom the application came up for hearing on the preliminary issues, held that the said lands were not owned by the petitioner on the date mentioned in Clause (d) of Section 31A of the Act. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, when he referred to the date mentioned in Clause (d) referred to the 1st day of January 1952. Accordingly, he rejected the application on December 16, 1957. The petitioner thereafter preferred tenancy appeal No. 4 of 1958 in the Court of the District Deputy Collector, Ratnagiri. The District Deputy Collector agreed with the view of the Tenancy Awal Karkun and dismissed the appeal on February 24, 1958. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Bombay Revenue Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act, in revision, against the order passed in appeal by the District Deputy Collector. The Tribunal agreed with the view taken by both the Tenancy Awal Karkun and the District Deputy Collector and summarily dismissed the revision application on June 16, 1958. It is against the summary dismissal of the revision application that the petitioner has come to this Court under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT is true that the petitioner purchased the lands in question in court auction. But at the court sale what passed to the auction purchaser was the right, title and interest of the original judgment -debtor. It is obvious that in the present case, the right, title and interest of the original judgment -debtor was that of a, landlord in regard to the said lands and as against the rights of the protected tenant, viz., opponent No. 1. The provisions of Section 65 and of Order XXI, Rule 96, Civil Procedure Code refer to the interest of the judgment -debtor as vested in and transferred to the auction purchaser from the time when the property is sold. It is, therefore, clear that the rights of the original judgment -debtor were transferred to the petitioner and the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the original landlord as against opponent No. 1. Now, if the petitioner's position was that of a landlord, then he would be regarded as such landlord from the time when the lands were sold in court auction.