SHANIWAR DHONDU DHARNEKAR Vs. PRABHAVATI CHANDRAKANT PATANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 is the landlady of Survey No. 47 admeasuring 22 acres and 2 gunthas plus 2 acres Pot Kharab and survey No. 17 admeasuring 33 gunthas situated at village Akorli in Panvel taluka of Kolaba district The petitioner is admittedly a tenant on the said lands. Respondent landlady filed an application for possession of the lands in dispute under the provisions of Section 14 read with Section 25 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Tenancy Act'). It is contended by the landlady that the tenant had made defaults for three years from 1969-70 to 1971-72 and intimations have been given on each default and ultimately the tenancy was terminated and thereafter the present application under Section 14 read with Section 25 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act is filed.

(2.) The Additional Awal Karkun, Panvel who made enquiry in respect of the said application framed necessary issues and recorded evidence of the parties and on consideration of evidence on record, Additional Awal Karkun came to the conclusion that the tenant-petitioner has committed three defaults and an intimation accordingly was given for each default Accordingly by the judgment and order, dated June 30, 1974, the application of the landlady was allowed and order for restoration of possession of the suit lands was granted. Against the said judgment and order, the tenant preferred an appeal to the Assistant Collector, Panvel being Tenancy Appeal No. 44 of 1974. That appeal on appreciation of evidence also came to be dismissed, by the judgment and order, dated Oct. 14, 1974. Thereafter the tenant filed revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The said revision application also came to be dismissed on Apr. 19, 1975. Against the said judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the present special civil application has been filed by the tenant-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) This special civil application was placed before Hajarnavis, J. for admission and at the admission stage, the same was dismissed on June 25, 1975. Against the said dismissal order the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 787 of 1976. Before the Supreme Court it was contended by the petitioner that the intimation contemplated by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy Act must not only be given by the landlord within a period of three months on each default, but the intimation must be served on the tenant within the period of three months on each default. It was also urged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court that there was no notice of termination as contemplated by the provisions of Section 14 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Supreme Court while remanding the matter held that the questions raised by the petitioner in the Supreme Court are important both from the point of view of landlords and tenants and it is necessary that the speaking order should be passed in that regard. Thus the matter is placed before me to dispose of this special civil application in accordance with law.