SAMBA MOTIRAM ALONE Vs. TUKARAM MAHADEO CHANDAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner-tenant challenges the orders passed by the Sub-Divi- sional Officer, Rajura and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, allowing the respondent-landlord's application under section 32(2) read with section 19 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and directing the delivery of possession of the suit lands to the respondent-landlord.

(2.) The lands in question are survey Nos. 19, area 8 acres 30 gunthas and survey No. 23, area 6 acres 17 gunthas of village Tulana in Rajura Tahsil of Chandrapur district. The lands in Rajura tahsil are governed by the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. The petitioner is the tenant in possession of these fields while the respondent is the landlord.

(3.) On 19-1-1973 the respondent filed an application in the Court of the Tahsildar, Rajura, purporting to be under section 19 of the Tenancy Act. In that application the respondent-landlord mentioned that the petitioner had not paid the rent in respect of the suit land which was Rs. 67.50 per year, for the three years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The respondent had issued notices to the petitioner requiring him to pay the rent amounts, but even then he had not paid the rent. Therefore, the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated and the respondent was entitled to possession. The copies of the three notices dated 7-6-1970, 16-8-1970 and 28-6-1972 alleged to have been sent to the petitioner were filed on record by the respondent along with his application under section 19 of the Tenancy Act. In all these three notices it was mentioned that the notice was being given to the petitioner because he had not paid the rent for the respective year and there was further recital that the petitioner was being informed by the notice that he should come and pay to the respondent the amount of lease money within 8 days from the date of receipt of notice, otherwise "legal proceeding will be taken against you". The present petitioner appeared in the Court of the Tahsildar and in reply to the respondent's application, admitted that he had not paid the rent for the 3 years, but disputed the actual amount due as rent for the said 3 years. The petitioner explained that he could not pay the rent because of failure of crops. It was also contended that the petitioner-tenant's rights could not be terminated because he was prepared to pay the rent within the time fixed. There was a prayer that he should be given 90 days' time to pay the rent. On this set of pleadings, the parties went to evidence and eventually the Naib-Tahsildar, Rajura passed the final order in the case on 24-4-1973. He observed in the course of this order that the intimation of the default had been given to the tenant within the time required by the proviso below section 28(1) of the Tenancy Act. The second finding recorded by the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura was that under the proviso below section 19(2)(a)(iii) of the Tenancy Act, no tenancy of any land held by a tenant could be terminated unless the landholder gives six months' notice in writing intimating his decision to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such termination. No such notice was served upon the tenant-petitioner in this case and therefore, the tenancy in this case could not be said to be terminated. In view of this finding actually the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura, should have dismissed the application for possession filed by the respondent-landlord under section 19 read with section 28 of the Tenancy Act. However, purporting to act under the proviso below section 28(2)of the Tenancy Act, the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura, ordered the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 202.50 for the three years 1969-70 to 1971-72 within a period of three months from the date of the order along with costs of the proceeding Rs. 11.15 failing which "the tenancy shall bedeemed to be terminated and the tenant Samba shall be liable to be evicted."