JUDGMENT - Tambe, C.J.

(1) Facts in brief are: One Laxminarayan, father of Kishan Gopal, the second respondent to this petition, was the landholder of suit field, S. No.90 situate in village Belkhed, taluka Akot, District Akola. He had leased that field to one Bikamchand, respondent no. 1, and the first respondent had acquired the status of a protected lessee under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (Act No. 24 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Berar Leases Act), By giving a notice under sub-section (i) of section 9 of the Berar Leases Act, and following the prescribed procedure, Laxminarayan had terminated the tenancy of Bhikamchand and had obtained possession of the aforesaid field on 3rd July 1955. Laxminarayan died on 20th October 1955 and his son Krishna Gopal succeeded to his estate and was in possession of the said field. The State Legislature enacted the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act (Act No. XCIX of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the new Tenancy Act). This Act repealed the aforesaid Berar Leases Act in its entirely. It came into force on 30th December 1958. Now on 9th February 1959, Krishna Gopal sold the field to Smt. Saraswatibai, the petitioner before us. Bhikamchand thereafter filed an application before the Tehsildar under section 52 of the new Tenancy Act for being restored to possession on the ground that in selling the field to Saraswati, Krishna Gopal had committed a breach of the provisions of section 52. The Additional Tehsildar rejected this application by his order dated 25th August 1962. The Special Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal. Bhikamchand then preferred a revision application before the Revenue Tribunal, and the revenue tribunal allowed it. Against the aforesaid order of the revenue tribunal the petitioner Saraswatibai had filed a writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(2) To appreciate the contentions raised before the learned Judge, it is necessary to refer in brief to the material part of section 9 of the Berar Leases Act and section 52 of the new Tenancy Act. Section 9 permits a landholder to terminate the lease of a protected lessee if he requires the land for cultivating it personally, and sub-section (1) requires him to give a notice to that effect to the protected lessee. It is not necessary to deal with sub-sections (2) to (5).

Sub-section (6) provides:

"(6) If on re-entering upon any land after termination of the lease of a protected lessee in accordance with this section, a landholder fails at any time during such period as may be prescribed to utilise the land for the purpose for which the lease was terminated, the dispossessed lessee may apply to the Revenue Officer to put him in possession of the land from the commencement of the agricultural year next following; and the Revenue Officer shall, after hearing the landholder and making such enquiry as he deems fit, put the lessee in possession of the land if he is satisfied of the fault and also award him such sum by way of compensation as the Revenue Officer may consider sufficient."

Rule 9 prescribes "such period" as that of two years. Sub-section (1) of section 52 of the new Tenancy Act provides:

"(1) Where after terminating the tenancy of any land under section 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, or under S. 38, 39 or 39-A of this Act, the landlord has taken possession of such land and he fails to use the land for the purpose specified in the notice given under the said section 9 or as the case may be, section 38, 39 or 39A within one year from the date on which he took possession or ceases to use it at any time for any of the aforesaid purposes within twelve years from the date on which he tool such possession of the land to the tenant whose tenancy was terminated by him .. .. .. .." Thus, the obligations cast on a landholder under sub-sec, (1) of S. 52 of the new Tenancy Act are more onerous than the obligations cast on the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document