WAIKKUNTHRAO Vs. TANBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the izardars of mouza Dhotra, taluq Yeotmal, and sue for a declaration that the defendant, who has been recorded a permanent tenant of Survey No. 28 of that village, is not a permanent tenant of that field. They lost the case in both the lower Courts. One Tanba Wanjari and his son, Jhitru got from the plaintiffs a perpetual lease of this field and another, with power to alienate them with the condition that on foreclosure, sale, gift or lease for a period exceeding 12 years, the plaintiffs would be paid 25 per cent of the price to get their sanction for such foreclosure, sale, gift or lease. The field in suit was bought by one Yeshwant, and the defendent purchased it from Yeshwant on 17th February 1922. The lower appellate Court holds that, though the defendant may not be a permanent tenant within the meaning of that expression in the Berar Alienated Village Tenancy Law. yet he is nevertheless a perpetual tenant of the field, and has given very good reasons for the conclusion it has come to.

(2.) IT is obvious that there can be permanent tenants in an izara village not coming within the term as defined by that law, i.e. tenants who have not been in possession since 1895. There is nothing to prevent an izardar who owns fields in his izara village from giving out the same to tenants permanently if he likes to do so; and therefore, it does not necessarily follow that, because a perpetual tenant does not come within the definition of a permanent tenant, of the law, he can be ejected from his field. The case seems to me to have been properly decided and I decline to interfere. I dismiss this appeal with costs. The appellants will pay the respondent's costs.