Continuance of unrecorded tenancy established due to failure of original tenants to validate their surrender of tenancy, reinforcing tenancy rights under the applicable laws.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

1. The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Land Tribunal, marked at Annexure-G.

2. In terms of the impugned order dated 18.03.2003, the Land Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights in favour of contesting respondents.

3. There were two different Form No.7 applications filed seeking occupancy rights in respect of two different survey numbers, in respect of different extents mentioned in Form No.7.

4. Rama Govind Marathe was one applicant. Pundalik Govind Marathe was another. By the time the matter was heard by the Land Tribunal in the year 2002, pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court, original applicants were no more and the legal representatives of the original applicants participated in the proceedings.

5. The petitioner/landlord (the legal representative of original landlady Gangawwa) is before this Court assailing the said order granting occupancy.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking through the facts of the case would contend that the properties in question were originally tenanted lands. Hari Govind Marathe was the tenant. In terms of resumption order dated 04.03.1957, marked at Annexure-A, tenancy in respect of the aforementioned properties was surrendered by Hari Govind Marathe in favour of the landlord Gangawwa W/o. Nagappa Uppin. Pursuant to the said order, the tenant Hari Govind Marathe delivered the possession of the properties and landlady Gangawwa came in possession of the properties. Learned counsel would also refer to the mutation entry No.197 to contend that the process of transfer of property through surrender is complete.

7. It is urged that the Land Tribunal could have granted occupancy rights only in case the applicants had established tenancy under Gangawwa or a person claiming under Gangawwa. The Form No.7 applicants failed to establish tenancy under Gagawwa. The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the order of surrender of tenancy is illegal and without jurisdiction and in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1948’].

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that tenancy is not established. No rent receipt is produced. There were no entry in the Record of Rights evidencing tenancy after 1955, and the Tribunal ignoring all these aspects erroneously held that the applicants were tenants in respect of the petition properties.

9. It is further submitted that the mutation entry No.197 pursuant to the order at Annexure-A, would demonstrate that the landlady came in possession of the properties and if the tenants were aggrieved by the said entry or the order directing delivery of possession in favour of the landlady, ought to have filed an application under Section 29 (1) of Act of 1948, to reclaim possession within two years. Since the tenants failed to file such an application, tenants’ right over the properties if any, stood extinguished, and therefore, the properties cannot be treated as tenanted properties.

10. It is his further submission that after 01.03.1974, by applying Section 44 of the KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT , 1961, the records of rights in