Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court directing the ejectment of the appellants from three tracts of agricultural land which the appellants are in cultivating possession since 1951.

2. Respondent Bhikaji is the owner of about 20 acres of land subject-matter of the dispute. The said land is in cultivating possession of the appellants since 1951 and according to them, they have acquired the status of protected lessees under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Berar Act) and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Bombay Act).

3. The respondent Bhikaji initiated proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldana for ejectment of the appellants on the ground that predecessor of the first appellants created sub-leases in favour of second appellant and one Zipra Wanchhu and as such their tenancy was liable to be terminated in terms of S. 8(1)(c)(f) of the Berar Act. Bhikaji filed two separate applications against the appellants. The applications were resisted by the appellants inter alia on the ground that all the three persons namely Pundlik Krishna, Kesho Krishna and Zipra Wanchhu were independent lessees in their own rights and as such there was no question of Pundlik Krishnaji having created sub-leases in favour of the other two. Before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the respondent Bhikaji produced a lease deed dated April 30, 1951 to prove that all the three tracts of land were leased to late Pundlik Krishnaji and no part of the land was ever leased to Keshao Krishnaji and Zipra Wanchhu. It was sought to be shown from the lease deed that the original lessee Pundlik Krishnaji sub-leased part of the land to the other two occupants. The Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the contention of the respondent and ordered the ejectment of the appellants. The Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded on the following reasoning:-

"The contention of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that the lease of the remaining half share of the suit land was created by the plaintiffs brother Keshav Bhikaji with the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 has no force ...........

The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the original lease deed dated 30-4-51 is a forged one, but they have failed to mention this fact in all their written statements or to show any reason when questioned by the plaintiffs counsel..............."

4. Pundlik Krishnaji and Keshao Krishnaji went in appeal before the Sub-Deputy Collector against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Collector dismissed the appeals. Regarding the lease deed relied upon by the respondent Bhikaji, the Collector observed as under:-

"The very fact that the appellant Pundlik executed a lease deed of all these fields in favour of respondent Trimbak goes to prove that he was the Karta of the family and his brother Keshao had no hand in the management on leasing out the property...........

The execution of lease deed dated 30-4-51 by appellant Pundlik in favour of the respondent Trimbak has been admitted by the appellants.............

On the other hand there is document "Lease Deed" dated 30-4-51 which clearly shows that appellant Pundlik was the sole lessee of the fields in question. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Pundlik was a tenant of the fields in question."

5. The tenants further went in revision before the Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and of the Sub-Collector and dismissed the ejectment applications of the respondent-landlord. The Tribunal noticed the arguments of the appellants-tenants in the following words:-

"Feeling aggrieved by this order, applicants filed two separate appeals. In their appeals, they urged that neither Keshao nor Zipra Wanchhu was the sub-tenant of the fields in question. Pundlik had not sublet the fields to them. The alleged lease deed dated 30-4