ISMAIL PATEL Vs. ZAHRA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition filed by the tenant against whom an eviction under section 98 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been passed by both the Courts below. The facts which have given rise to this revision petition are : The landlady filed an application for eviction under section 98 of the Tenancy Art (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') regarding Survey Nos. 72 and 73 situate at Godga, on the ground that the tenant was given these lands in 1952 on lease for three years. As he had not paid rents for two years, the landlady filed an application under section 72 of the Land Revenue Act before the Tahsildar, where the suit for the rent was decreed. An appeal against the said decree is pending before the Collector. It was stated that as the possession of the tenant after the expiry of the lease period, i.e., since 1955, is unauthorised and unlawful, he should be evicted from the lands and possession of the same should be given to her.

(2.) In the written statement, the tenant has pleaded that section 98 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. He also disputed the title of the landlady and claimed that he is the owner of the same. The Tahsildar, before whom this petition for eviction was filed, held that as the tenant is a defaulter he is liable to be evicted under section 98. The tenant, dissatisfied with the order of the Tahsildar, went in appeal before the Collector., who, in his order, dated soth December, 1958, held that Zahra Bi requested the termination of the tenancy of the tenant as he was a defaulter and as the tenant took a wrong stand and claimed ownership of the land, order for eviction was correctly passed by the Tahsildar. This Revision Petition is directed against the said order of the Collector.

(3.) It is firstly contended by Mr. Sitharama Rao, learned Advocate for the revision petitioner that, section 98 is not applicable to this case, as the tenant who remains in possession after the expiry of the period of tenancy under the contract cannot be said to be unauthorised or unlawful occupant of the land. Section 98 clearly enjoins that if the other provisions of the Art do not provide for eviction with reference to the facts of each case, it is only then that the residuary section 98 would be applied for purposes of eviction of unauthorised or wrongful occupants. It is admitted that the tenant who holds a lease on the basis of an oral contract cannot be considered as a person unauthorisedly occupying or is in wrongful possession of the tame. There is a specific provision (section 32) in the Act for getting the tenants evicted. Section 32 (2) reads : "No landholder shall obtain possession of any land or dwelling house held by a tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar, for which he shall apply in the prescribed form."