JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---This is another illustration how the Court's process is being made a mockery.

2. The present petitioner has not an infinitesimal justification for holding fast to the land as regards which order for possession has been passed in favour of the respondent -landlord as early as on 7th March, 1975 in an application filed as early as on 3rd January, 1963 by the certificated landlord in whose favour the order for Exemption Certificate under section 88 was passed on 31st August, 1962. For a full period of 16 years, the landlord is being driven from pillar to post to get the certificated land. He does not know till this date the fate of the proceeding instituted by him on 3-1-1963. The delay of the last 5 years is the result of pendency of this writ petition for that period of 5 years in this Court.

3. The facts are very simple. The suit land admittedly belongs to the respondent -landlord, which was held by the deceased-present petitioner as a tenant. The landlord made application to the tenancy Court under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act for exemption from the provisions of sections 32 to 32-R of the Act on the ground that his annual income was less than Rs. 1,500/-. The order issuing the certificate in his favour was passed by the tenancy Court, after duly hearing the petitioner , as early as on 31st August, 1962. It is the case of Mr. Mogre the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, that although the order issuing certificate was passed on 31st August, 1962, the certificate was actually not received by the said certificated landlord. This particular contention has got some bearing upon one of the questions involved in his petition.

On 28th December, 1962, notice was given by the certificated landlord to the petitioner under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act terminating his tenancy in respect of the suit land on the ground that he required the same bona fide for his personal cultivation. The application was stoutly resisted by the present petitioner so much so that it remained pending in the tenancy Court for more than 12 years. It was ultimately decided on 7th March, 1975 when the trial Court upheld the landlord's plea of his bona fide requirement and passed an order for possession of the suit land in his favour.

An appeal was preferred against that order. As appears to be the usual procedure of all the Deputy Collectors the Deputy Collector who heard the appeal remanded the matter went before the Tahsildar, he passed the order of possession in favour of the landlord , once again. The usual rounds of such litigation started all over again. Appeal was filed by the tenant to the Deputy Collector , who dismissed the same. A revision application was filed against that order to the Revenue Tribunal which also dismissed the same. The present writ petition is filed against the said order of the Revenue Tribunal, confirming in effect the orders passed by the trial Court and the Appeal Court.

4. Only three questions have been urged before me by Mrs. Mogre. Her first contention is that although an order was passed by the tenancy Court issuing the requisite Exemption Certificate to the landlord under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act, the Certificate was actually not received by the landlord at any time. According to her, therefore, the application under section 33-B was not maintainable.

The proposition is required just to be stated to be rejected. Section 33-A, no doubt, provides that the certificated landlord is one who holds certificate issued to him under Sub-section (4) of section 88. But the point is that the landlord cannot be penalised, for the fault of the office of Court which has failed to issue the certificate to the tenant in spite of the Court's order granting the certificate. The provision has got to be construed equitably and it is a well-known principle of equity regards that as done which ought to be done. Substantive right of the parties can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document