VIJAYKUMAR JUGLAL Vs. BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in this special civil application falls within a narrow compass and that question is whether a notice given by a landholder under Section 9(1) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, which will be hereafter referred to as the Act, will enure for the benefit of his legal representatives. This question has arisen in these circumstances. One Juglal Mannalal Gujerathi was the holder of survey No. 101 admeasuring 36 acres situated at mouza Manarkhed, tahsil Balapur, district Akola. It is common; ground now that this field was purchased by Juglal and during his lifetime was his self -acquired property. He himself was recorded as the occupant of this field. The present opponent Abdul Raheman was the protected lessee of this field. In December 1954 Juglal gave a notice under Section 9(7) of the Act terminating the lease of the opponent on the ground that he required the land for his personal cultivation. This was a three months' notice as required by Section 9(1). The protected lessee objected to this notice and filed an application under Section 9(3) of the Act, and one of the grounds of the objection appears to be that Juglal had under his personal cultivation more than 50 acres of land. This application was filed by the opponent on January 5, 1955. On August 9, 1955, the Sub -Divisional Officer Balapur, rejected the opponent's application and the lessee went in appeal, and it appears that the appellate Court remanded the case on January 9, 1956. On March 28, 1956, the opponent was allowed to amend his application and on July 12, 1956, Juglal filed a written statement to the application as amended. On November 13, 1956,. Juglal died and the opponent Abdul Raheman brought the present petitioners, namely, Juglal's son Vijaykumar and Juglal's wife Mirabai, on the record as his legal representatives. This was done on February 22, 1957, by the Sub -Divisional Officer to whom the case was remanded. On May 3, 1957, the Sub -Divisional Officer rejected the opponent -lessee's plea that the petitioners had more than 50 acres under personal cultivation. The result was that the application of the lessee under Section 9(3) of the Act was rejected. It appears that there was an appeal filed by Abdul Raheman against the decision of the Sub -Divisional Officer but the same came to be dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Akola, on September 24, 1957.

(2.) ON April 18, 1957, the present petitioners filed an application under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act praying that the Sub -divisional Officer should terminate the lease of the opponent with regard to survey No. 101. In this application it was stated that the field was purchased by Juglal and was during his lifetime his self -acquired property and Juglal was himself the recorded occupant of the field. As the Sub -Divisional Officer's order in the earlier proceedings came to be passed on May 3, 1957, as already stated, reference was made in this application to these pending proceedings also and it was stated that as legal representatives of the deceased Juglal, the applicants were making an application under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act for getting an order of termination -of the lease from the year 1955. This application was resisted by the opponent -lessee and ho contended that the field survey No. 101 was not owned by the family of Juglal but admitted in. his written statement that this field was purchased by Juglal and was his self -acquired property as stated in the application. He denied that the applicants were the legal representatives of the -deceased Juglal and as such could file an application under Section 8(1)(g) forgetting an order of termination of the lease in respect of that field. He further contended that the right to get the lease terminated did not survive to the applicants as a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act was not served on the opponent by them and they had, therefore, no right to apply for termination. It was further stated that the land held by and available to the applicants for personal cultivation was more than 50 acres and consequently the application for termination was liable to be dismissed. It was also urged that the applicants were not the recorded occupants of the field in question and hence they were not entitled to apply for termination of the lease under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. This written statement was filed by the opponent on June 20, 1957, that is to say, after the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer in the earlier proceedings was passed on May 3, 1957. On July 16, 1957, the Sub -Divisional Officer dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that the applicants were not landholders as they were not recorded as occupants of the field in question and that they themselves had not served a notice on the lessee. He further held that Juglal was the recorded occupant and he died on November 13, 1956, and unless his legal heirs got themselves recorded as occupants and gave a fresh notice to the lessee, their application could not be entertained. In coming to this decision, the Sub -Divisional Officer appears to have followed a decision of the Board of Revenue that only the landholder could serve a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. As already indicated, it was after this decision that on September 24, 1957, the appeal filed by the opponent -lessee in the earlier proceedings was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Akola.

(3.) THE petitioners filed a revenue appeal against the dismissal of their application by the Sub -Divisional Officer and that appeal was allowed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Akola. He came to the conclusion that the notice given by Juglal was for the benefit of the landlord's family and, therefore, it would enure for the appellants also who were the legal representatives of Juglal, and he gave his opinion that it was not necessary for the appellants to give a fresh notice before being entitled to apply for termination of the lease under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. On these grounds he reversed the decision of the Sub -Divisional Officer and ordered the termination of the lease in respect of field No. 101 as prayed for. Against this decision of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, the protected lessee filed a revision petition to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur. The Tribunal reversed the decision of the appellate authority and restored that of the Sub -Divisional Officer on the ground that it would not be correct to say that the petitioners intended to cultivate personally the field involved in these proceedings because they had made no such statement in their application that they required the land for personal cultivation. The Tribunal, therefore, was inclined to take the view that it was open to the petitioners to serve the lessee with a fresh notice and follow it up with an application under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the petitioners have come to this Court by way of a special civil application.