JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition takes exception to the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 23rd July, 1984 in Tenancy Application No. 156 of 1983.

2. The petitioners are the landlords in respect of the agricultural land bearing R.S.No. 21/6A admeasuring 26 Are and R.S.No. 21/128 admeasuring 7 Are of Village - Jamsande situated in Deogad Tahsil, Dist.- Sindhudurg. The respondents are the successors of Sitaram Raut, who was admittedly a protected tenant in respect of the suit land. It is not in dispute that proceedings in relation to declaring the said Sitaram Raut as protected tenant were held sometime in the year 1948 wherein he was declared as a protected tenant on 15-3-1948. The mutation entry in that behalf has also been recorded. The said Sitaram Raut expired on 30th December, 1948 i.e. two days after the Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948 (The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948) came into effect.

3. The present case is therefore, governed by the provisions of Tenancy Act of 1948. The main issue which arises for consideration is whether the respondents who are the heirs of deceased Sitaram Raut- the protected tenant in respect of the suit lands, would inherit the tenancy rights within the meaning of the said Act ? It is not in dispute that the respondents are in possession of the suit lands even today. Another relevant fact is that, after the tenant died, although the respondents possessed and cultivated the suit land having inherited from the original tenant, the village record continued to show the name of the respondent's predecessor Sitaram Raut as the protected tenant as late as till October, 1958. It is on 31st October, 1958 the name of the predecessor of the respondents was sought to be deleted by Mutation Entry No. 8072 dated 31st October, 1958. Even after the deletion of the name of the predecessor of the respondents, the respondents continued to cultivate the suit lands without any obstruction from any quarter. However, it is sometime in the year 1971 that the petitioners instituted suit against the respondents for injunction before the Civil Court. In the said suit, the respondents appeared and raised plea of tenancy consequent to which the Civil Court referred the issue of tenancy to be decided by the Tahsildar as required under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. In the meantime, the respondents had already filed an application under section 70(b) of the Act for declaring them as tenants in respect of the suit lands. Both the reference made by the Civil Court as well as the said application were consolidated and heard together by the Tahsildar, Deogad. The Tahsildar, by the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1981 was pleased to hold that the respondents were the tenants in respect of the suit land on the tillers' day i.e. 1-4-1957 and have become deemed purchasers. The petitioners filed appeal before the Collector, Sindhudurg, which was also dismissed on 17-8-1982. The Appellant Court confirmed the findings of facts recorded by the said Court that respondents inherited the tenancy rights and became deemed purchasers on the tillers' day. The petitioners therefore carried the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, vide its judgment and order dated 23rd July, 1984 was pleased to dismiss the revision application.

4. Accordingly, the consistent view of the courts below is that the respondents have stepped into the shoes of their predecessor Sitaram Raut who died on 30th December, 1948 and since they were in possession of the suit lands on the tillers' day they have became deemed purchasers in respect of the suit lands. In other words, the courts below have held that the respondents being the heirs of deceased protected tenant they were entitled to inherit the tenancy rights of their predecessor. Naturally, the only question which arises for consideration in the present petition is - whether section 40 as it stood

Click Here to Read the rest of this document