YESHWANT RAO GUJAR Vs. BISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant brought a suit for possession of two sites in the village abadi. In the trial Court a decree was granted enjoining the defendant-respondents to use their houses for residential or agricultural purposes within six months or, if they failed to do so, to vacate the sites after removing the superstructure and, to give possession of the site to the appellant. On appeal however by the defendant that decree was set aside and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed altogether. The plaintiff has now preferred this second appeal. The facts of the case have been stated fully in the judgment of the lower Courts and it need only be said that the suit relates to two abadi sites, with regard to one of which it has been found that it was vacant, whilst as regards the other it has been found that it had been let out by the respondents for the purposes of a bidi factory. The lower appellate Court has held that, even though the sites were originally granted to the predecessors of the respondents for the purpose of keeping their bullocks and one of the sites is now used for a bidi factory, still the landlord would get no right of re-entry, as there has been no permanent abandonment of the site by the tenants.

(2.) THERE has been a long discussion in the judgment of the lower appellate Court with regard to Section 203, Land Revenue Act, but I am of opinion that the lower appellate Court has taken a somewhat wrong view of the matter. In the first place, admittedly the site was not a house site, but was granted to the predecessors of the respondents, Baijya and Isrya to build kothas for keeping their cattle. Section 203(1) therefore of the Land Revenue Act, which relates only to house sites, would not,strictly speaking, apply. As held in Mt. Ranibahu v. Narayanrao AIR 1928 Nag 69, which has been cited by the lower appellate Court, Section 203(1) Land Revenue Act, only means that every tenant is entitled to a house site of reasonable dimensions for his residential purposes, but that he has no right to a site 'unless he means to construct a residence thereon. In the present case admittedly the respondents have other sites for their residence, and they hold the sites in suit only on the conditions, according to which, they were originally granted, namely, for the purposes of building cattle sheds and for keeping their agricultural cattle. It would seem then that Section 203(8) would apply, and the matter must be decided according to the terms of the contract between the proprietor, i.e., the appellant, and the holders of the sites, i.e., the respondents.