SADASHEO Vs. VITHOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal ex parte. The suit was brought by respondent 1, who does not appear, in March 1923, in the Court of the Munsiff of Kelapur, against the appellant, who is his landlord, to have it declared that he is permanent tenant of certain fields by virtue of the provisions of the Berar Alienated Villages Tenancy Law, 192.1. By S. 47 of that Act, which came into force on 1 January 1922, it is provided that "A tenant, other than an ante-alienation tenant or a sub-tenant, who, at the commencement of this law, has either by himself or by himself and through his predecessor-in-title, sub-tenant or mortgagee in possession, held land continuously from a date previous to 1 day of June 1895, shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary executed prior to the commencement of this law, be deemed to be a permanent tenant of such land."

(2.) Admittedly respondent 1 has held the fields continuously from a date prior to 1-01- 1895, up to the spring of 1921. In March 1921, the appellant gave him notice to quit. What followed after that is a matter of controversy. The appellant says that he voluntarily quitted the fields in April. Respondent 1 says that he did not do so, but was forcibly and wrongfully ejected in May. The sections of the Act to which reference has been made, beside S.47, are Ss.74 and 75 : 74 "Any tenant who has been ejected from his holding or from any portion thereof otherwise than in accordance with this law, or whose holding has been treated as abandoned under 8. 87, may, on application to a revenue officer made within one year from the date on his ejectment, or from the first day of the agricultural year next after the entry by the landlord, as the case may be, reinstated in possession of such holding or portion thereof :" 75 : "Any tenant who has been ejected on or after 1 day of January 1916, from his holding or any portion thereof, under decree or order of a civil Court, and who, if he had not been so ejected, would be deemed under S. 47 to be a permanent tenant thereof, may apply to revenue officer, within one year from the commencement of this law, to be reinstated in possession of such holding or porrion thereof." The Munsif took the view that S. 74 only applied to ejectment after the Act, and that the only reinstatement which could bring with it permanent tenancy was S. 75. He, therefore, considered it unnecessary to decide the controverted question of fact as to which he had granted an issue.

(3.) Appeal was then taken to the Court of the District Judge, who took the same view and dismissed the appeal. The appeal was then taken to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. He held that it had been practically admitted that the plaintiff had been forcibly dismissed and that upon that assumption he held that the plaintiff still held the land, although he had not cultivated or possessed it, and he gave a declaration of permanent tenancy as craved. From this judgment this appeal is taken.