JUDGMENT - Y. S. TAMBE. J. :

By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Lala Jugal-kishore seeks to get quashed the order of the first respondent, the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, dated 8-8-1957, and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, the second respondent, dated 5-1-1957. He further prays that the respondents be directed to put him in possession of the fields in question.

(2) This case has a very chequered history. The petitioner is a landlord of certain fields. He had given them on lease to the third respondent Ratanlal. The lease was to expire on 1-3-1952. Batanlal, thus being a lessee of the fields in the agri cultural year 1951-52, was entitled to claim the status of a protected lessee under section 3 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 31-3-1952 Ratanlal made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, praying that he be declared a protected lessee and for determination of reason able lease money in respect of those fields. The petitioner Lala Jugalkishore also made an applica tion to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 10-5-1952 pray ing that the tenancy of the respondent No. 3 be terminated. Though it is not mentioned in the petition, Shri Phadke, learned counsel for the peti tioner, states that that application was made under section 8 of the Act on the ground that Ratanlal was not taking proper care of the fields and that he had contravened the provisions of section 8 (1) (b) of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer sent both these applications to the Tahsildar for enquiry and report. It appears that the lands leased out by the petitioner to the third respondent admeasure about 84 acres.

(2a) Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act provides that no person shall, at any time, be deemed to be a protected lessee in respect of any area in excess of fifty acres. Sub-section (2) of the said section further provides that if the area in which a lessee is entitled under section 3 to be deemed to be a protected lessee at any time together with any other area, if any, held by him as protected lessee, exceeds fifty acres, he shall select so much only of the first mentioned area as would make the total area to be held by him as protected lessee equal to fifty acres, and he shall give an intimation in writing to the landholder or landholders, as the case may be, and to the Revenue Officer and thereupon he shall be deemed to be a protected lessee of the area 60 selected. The third respondent had not made a selection of fifty acres as required by sub-section

(2) to section 4 of the Act. The Tahsildar, there fore, by his report to the Sub-Divisional Officer stated that as tile third respondent Ratanlal had failed to make the selection, he could not claim the status of a protected lessee, and therefore, his application for declaration that he is a protected lessee and for determination of a reasonable rent, should be dismissed. He also recommended that as Ratanlal was not entitled to claim the status of a protected lessee, his landlord Lala Jugalkishore also had no right to make an application under section 8 of the Act. Accepting the report of the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, on 10-7-1952, rejected both the aforesaid applications of the landlord and the tenant. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer then sent his order dated 10-7-1952 to the Tahsildar for compliance. The Tahsildar then ordered that the intimation of this order be given to the parties. It is not known how, but it appears that a parwana was issued directing that the present land lord Lala Jugalkishore be delivered possession of the fields and under the parwana possession was obtain ed by Lala Jugalkishore on 13-7-1952. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 10-7-1952 both the landlord as well as the tenant took an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner. It appears that the landlords appeal was, for one reason or the other kept pen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document