The Revenue Tribunal erred in not considering the Mamlatdar's finding that the landlord wanted possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation, which was an error apparent on the face of the Revenue Tribunal's order and resulted in the denial of an opportunity to the tenant to show that the landlord did not want the possession of these lands for bona fide personal cultivation.

Headnote:
BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 34 - LANDLORD'S REQUIREMENT OF LAND FOR BONA FIDE PERSONAL CULTIVATION - FINDING OF FACT BY MAMLATDAR - FAILURE OF ASSISTANT COLLECTOR TO CONSIDER FINDING - ERROR APPARENT ON FACE OF REVENUE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER - REMAND TO REVENUE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF POINT OF LAW AND REMAND TO ASSISTANT COLLECTOR FOR FINDING ON QUESTION OF FACT.
Fact of the Case:

A landlord filed an application under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before a Mamlatdar for recovering possession of his lands from his tenant for bona fide personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar found that the landlord wanted possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation and ordered the tenant to hand over possession to him. The tenant appealed to the Assistant Collector, who disposed of the appeal only upon a preliminary point raised by the tenant, viz., whether the landlord had established that he was a landlord at all. The Assistant Collector held that the landlord had failed to establish a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that accordingly the landlord was not entitled to recover possession of the lands from the tenant. The landlord went in revision before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, which held that the finding of the Assistant Collector was erroneous in law and restored the Mamlatdar's order.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Revenue Tribunal erred in not considering the Mamlatdar's finding that the landlord wanted possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation. The Court found that this was an error apparent on the face of the Revenue Tribunal's order and that it resulted in the denial of an opportunity to the tenant to show that the landlord did not want the possession of these lands for bona fide personal cultivation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Revenue Tribunal erred in not considering the Mamlatdar's finding that the landlord wanted possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation? 2. Whether the error of the Revenue Tribunal resulted in the denial of an opportunity to the tenant to show that the landlord did not want the possession of these lands for bona fide personal cultivation?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the Revenue Tribunal erred in not considering the Mamlatdar's finding that the landlord wanted possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation. The Court found that this was an error apparent on the face of the Revenue Tribunal's order and that it resulted in the denial of an opportunity to the tenant to show that the landlord did not want the possession of these lands for bona fide personal cultivation. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which limits the jurisdiction of the Revenue Tribunal to interfere with the orders passed by the subordinate tribunals only if the said orders were contrary to law or showed that some material issues of law had not been determined or if the orders disclosed that there was a substantial defect in following the procedure laid down under the Act, which defect had resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the order of the Revenue Tribunal and directed that the matter be sent back to the Revenue Tribunal with a direction that, if there is any point of law left to be decided in this matter, the Revenue Tribunal should decide that point of law and so far as the question of fact, viz., whether the landlord wants to recover possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation is concerned, the Revenue Tribunal will send back the case to the Assistant Collector for recording a finding on this issue and for disposal according to law.

Judgment

1. A short point which has arisen in this application, which is filed by the tenants under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, may be stated in this way. There is an application filed by a landlord under Section 34, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before a Mamlatdar for recovering possession of his lands from his tenant for bona fide personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar considered certain questions of fact, including a question whether the landlord required possession of his lands for bona fide personal cultivation, and came to the conclusion that the landlord wanted possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation and ordered the tenant to hand over possession to him.

On the tenant appealing to the Assistant Collector, the Assistant Collector disposed of the appeal only upon a preliminary point raised by the tenant, viz., whether in view of a certain entry in respect of the lands in the record of rights, the respondent before him had established that he was a landlord at all. The Assistant Collector held that the respondent had failed to establish a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that therefore the provisions of the Act did not apply and that accordingly the respondent was not entitled to recover possession of the lands from the appellant.

The landlord went in revision before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the finding of the Assistant Collector that there was ho relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties was erroneous in law reversed the Assistant Collectors order. The effect was that the Mamlatdars order was restored. Now the point in these proceedings under Articles 226 227 is whether the finding of the Mamlatdar that the landlord wanted possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation is conclusive in this case.

(2) Upon the application on the landlord before the Mamlatdar, the points which arose for the Mamlatdars decision were: (1) Whether the present applicants were protected tenants of the suit lands; (2) whether proper notice terminating the tenancy was given to them by the landlord under Section 34 of the Act; (3) whether the lands were required by the landlord for bona fide personal cultivation and (4) whether the landlord was already cultivating 50 acres or more of land.

The Mamlatdar held that the present applicants were protected tenants of the suit lands, that proper notice terminating their tenancy was given to them under Section 34 of the Act, that the lands were required by the landlord for bona fide personal cultivation and that the landlord was culti vating less than 50 acres of land at the date of his application. The finding with which we are at present concerned is regarding the landlords claim that he needs to have possession of his lands, because he bona fide wants to cultivate them personally.

To this finding the Assistant Collector paid no attention and gave no consideration whatever while deciding the tenants appeal. He disposed of the appeal solely upon a preliminary point taken by the tenant that his alleged landlord was not really his landlord at all since his name was not shown as a kabjedar (occupant) of these lands in, the record of rights, but was shown in the column of other rights. The Assistant Collector upheld that point, did not go into any question of fact and upset the order of the Mamlatdar.

The aggrieved landlord appealed to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal in revision and the Tribunal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, came to the conclusion that the finding of the Assistant Collector, based purely upon an entry in the record of rights which had only a presumptive value, was erroneous in law. The Tribunal observed that there were clear admissions by the respondent be fore them that he was a protected tenant of these lands and that these admissions were sufficient to rebut the presumption arising out of an entry in the record of rights under Section 135(j)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document