JUDGMENT - Chagla, C. J.

1. By this petition an order passed by the Revenue Tribunal is challenged on the ground that the order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.

2. The property in question, which are lands bearing survey Nos. 189, 190 and 200 situate at Man, taluka Mulshi, District Poona, belonged to one Chitaman vasudeo Bhat, and the opponent Narayan Hari Bharane was his protected tenant. An agreement of sale dated December 17, 1948, was entered into between Bhat and the petitioners. The consideration was Rs. 5,999, and Rs. 1,001 were paid by the petitioners to Bhat on the date when the agreement of sale was executed. In pursuance of this agreement a registered sale-deed was passed by Bhat in favour of the petitioners on 20-4-1949.

The petitioners thereafter served the opponent Bharane with one years notice on 30-3-1950; and when the period of notice expired, they took out proceeedings before the Mamlatdar for possession of the property. The Mamlatdar ordered the possession of the property to be handed over to the petitioners. An appeal was preferred to the Collector at Poona, who reversed the decision of the Mamlatdar. In revision the Revenue Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector.

3. The short point that arises for consideration in this application is whether the sale which was effected on 20-4-1949, after the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 67 of 1948, came into force was saved by reason of the fact that the agreement of sale was executed on December 17, 1948, prior to the coming into force of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

4. tinder Section 64, Sub-section (3), of the Act, it is provided that any sale made in contravention of that section shall be void; and it is not disputed that the sale we are considering was in contravention of this section. What was urged before the Revenue Tribunal by the petitioners was that the sale was saved by reason of Section 89, Sub-section. (2), of the Act, and on construction of Section 89, Sub-section (2), the Revenue Tribunal came to the conclusion that the sale was not saved.

5 It is difficult to understand how it can be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record which would justify us in interfering with the decision of the Revenue Tribunal by a writ or direction under Article 226 or Article 227. The Revenue Tribunal has not overlooked any provision of the law. In fact it has given effect to the provision of Section 64, Sub-section (3); and the most that could be said about the decision of the Tribunal is that it has put a wrong construction upon Section 89, Sub-section (2), of the Act.

It may also be urged that the decision of the Tribunal is erroneous in law, but as we have had occasion to say in the past, every wrong decision in law is not one which would entitle this Court to interfere with decisions of Courts or tribunals by a writ or direction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. An erroneous decision in law is something very different from a position arising out of an error being apparent on the face of the record. But even assuming that we were entitled to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal, in our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal seems to be correct.

6. The view taken by the Tribunal is that the right as saved under Section 89, Sub-section (2), is a right which must be considered ejusdem generis with title and interest which occur in the same subsection, and as the agreement of sale creates no right in property, the Tribunal has taken the view that the right contemplated by Section 89, Sub-section (2), is not a right which a person has when he enters into an agreement of sale.

But apart from that, the only right which the petitioners had when they entered into the agreement of sale was a right of action. They had a right to file a suit for specific performance, if the contract was not completed by the vendor. Specific performance is a discretionary remedy, and the Court was not bound

Click Here to Read the rest of this document