JUDGMENT - Tarkunde, J.

(1) This special civil application has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It was referred by a Single Judge to a Division Bench. The facts involved are very simple. The first respondent is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant of an agricultural land admeasuring 6 acres and 19 gunthas situate in a village in East Khandesh. The first respondent obtained a certificate under sub-section (4) of S. 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 exempting the land from the operation of Ss. 32 to 32-R of the said Act. Thus the petitioner is an "excluded tenant" and the first respondent a "certificated landlord" as defined by S 33-A of the Act. After obtaining a certificate under S. 88-C (4) the first respondent applied for possession of the land under S. 33-B. It is common ground that on the date when this application was filed the first respondent had no land under personal cultivation and the only land which the petitioner had under his personal cultivation was the land in dispute. The tenancy Aval Karkun who heard the first respondents application for possession, dismissed it on the ground that the first respondent did not require the land bona fide for cultivating it personally. The first respondent went in appeal to the Special Deputy Collector of Jalgaon, and the Special Deputy Collector allowed the appeal, held that the first respondent required the land bone fide for personal cultivation and made an order under sub-section (5) (b) of S. 33-B that possession of half the leased land should be given to the first respondent. Both the parties went in revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal from the decision of the Special Deputy Collector. An application was made on behalf of the first respondent before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for the admission of some additional evidence. The additional evidence consisted of a sale deed, which was executed in favour of the petitioner (the excluded tenant) after the decision of the tenancy Aval Karkun and before the decision of the Special Deputy Collector, as a result of which the petitioner obtained an agricultural land admeasuring 5 acres and 20 gunthas for his personal cultivation. The additional evidence was allowed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In its final order in disposing of the revision applications the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that the additional piece of land obtained by the petitioner for personal cultivation during the pendency of this litigation should be taken into consideration in determining the extent of the leased land to which the first respondent was entitled under the terms of sub-section (5) (b) of S. 33-B. It is now well established that in deciding the extent of the leased land of which a landlord can be awarded possession under S. 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the area of all the other lands, if any, personally cultivated by the landlord and the area of all the other lands, if any, held by the tenant for personal cultivation should be taken into consideration and the landlord should be awarded possession of so much area of the land leased as would result in each of them holding thereafter, so far as possible, equal areas of lands for personal cultivation, (Vide Rambhau Ganpat Sutar v. Bhau Tatyaba Patole, 66 Bom LR 1). In taking into consideration the land purchased by the petitioner during the course of the litigation, the Revenue Tribunal held "the Court can ordinarily take notice of the event which have occurred during the pendency of the action and which are likely to have a bearing on the final order to be made". The Tribunal further observed "The Court can even take into consideration the events that have happened since the institution of the suit and mould its decree according to the circumstances at the time of the final decree". Acting on this principle the Tribunal modified the order of the Special Deputy Collector in favour of the first respond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document