PUNDLIK KRISHNAJI Vs. TRIMBAK BHIKAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal allowed the tenants' revision on the following grounds : -

(2.) A bare reading of the Tribunal's order shows that the Tribunal granted relief to the appellant -tenant on the above two grounds. We are of the view that the High Court was justified in setting aside the Tribunal's finding on the first point mentioned above. The High Court found that Trimbak Bhikaji being the Karta of the family could file the applications for termination of the tenancy without associating his brother. We see no infirmity in the said finding of the High Court. The High Court was also right in rejecting the contention of the tenant that the proceedings under the Bombay Act were illegal as the requirement of prior notice under the said Act was not complied with. We are, however, of the view that the High Court erred in holding that the lease deed dated April 30, 1951 was a genuine document. No enquiry was held at any stage regarding the genuineness of the lease deed. The Sub -Divisional Officer refused to go into the question on the ground that there were no pleadings on the point. The Sub - Divisional Officer was obviously wrong because the lease deed was filed by the respondent -landowner after the pleadings were completed. The Appellate Court was wholly unjustified in observing that the appellant -tenants" had admitted the execution of the lease deed. The appellants' case throughout had been that the lease deed was a forged document.

(3.) WE , therefore, set aside the High Court judgment and also of the Courts below and remand the case to the concerned trial Court for deciding the ejectment applications filed by the respondent -land owner afresh after affording opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. The trial Court shall afford full opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the issue of the genuineness or otherwise of the lease deed dated April 30, 1951. Appeal allowed.