The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lease deed specifying the cultivation of a particular crop governs the application of special provisions of the relevant Act, regardless of whether the land was actually used for that purpose.

JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:--This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 16th October, 1967 in Revision No. MRT-KP-IX 17/65 (TEN-AP 439/65). The land in question being Survey No. 34, admeasuring 17 acres 29 gunthas situated at village Yadrav in Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. The subject land was given on lease to the predecessor of the petitioners by written lease deed dated 19-12-1863 by the predecessor of respondents i.e. landlords thereof. The relevant clause which would govern the contention raised before this Court in the said lease deed reads thus:---

^^lnjgw tfeuhr vkEgh foghj 10 lkyps vkr dk<wu ckXkk;r d:- Ål iV Ålkph ykxo.k d:] R;k lkykiklwu xko fkjLrs izek.ks lnj lkB :i;s fkok; nsr tkÅ] tehu vkEgh v{k; djkjkus vkEgh Äsryh R;kr foghj dk<wu ckXkk;r d: o >kM >qMqi oxSjs mRiUu d: R;klq/nk ekydaah vkeph vkgs- R;koj rqepk okjlk ukgh-^^

The English translation of this Clause which has been done with the assistance of Counsel appearing for both the parties and which is acceptable to them read thus:

"In the said land we shall dig a well within 10 years and make the land Bagayat (horticulture). We shall cultivate the sugar cane crop and from that year we shall pay amount as per prevailing practice of village in addition to the said amount of Rs. 60/-. We have taken land on lease on permanent basis. We shall dig a well in the said land and make it Bagayat (horticulture) and grow trees and bushes and we shall be the owners thereof and you have no inheritance (rights) thereon."

2. It is not in dispute that although the lease was for cultivation of the sugar cane crop but the land was cultivated for jiryat crops till 1957. In fact, the well was dug in the suit land only some time in 1960-61. Even this position is not in dispute. It is not necessary to advert to the litigation between the parties prior to 1957 for deciding issue that arises for consideration of this case. Suffice it to mention that the landlord had filed suit for enhancement of the lease rent, which plea was however, rejected and it has been so confirmed right upto this Court. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner started cultivating the sugar cane only in a portion of the suit land from the year 1960-61 to the extent of only 1 acre 30 gunthas out of the suit land. The respondents, however, some time in the year 1963 filed an application under section 43-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to Tenancy Act) contending that now the land was being actually cultivated for sugar cane crop from the year 1960-61, they were entitled for enhancement of lease rent at a reasonable rate. That application was resisted by the petitioners on diverse counts. One of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that although the lease was for the cultivation of sugar cane crop but the lands were not put to cultivation of sugar cane as such, till the tillers day and on account of that fact the petitioners have become deemed purchasers of the suit land and the special provisions of Chapter III-A of the Act will have no application to the present case. On that premise the petitioners prayed that the application be rejected. The tenancy authority by order dated 15-7-1963 accepted the said plea of the petitioners-tenants and held that the land was not leased for cultivation of sugar cane crop and therefore the petitioners have become deemed purchasers on the tillers day on 1-4-1957 and on account of that fact the relationship between the petitioners and the respondents as tenants and landlord was snapped and the application could not proceed further.

3. Against this decision the respondents carried the matter in appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 129 of 1984. The Appellate Authority by order dated 31-5-1965 held that on perusal of the lease deed it would appear that lease was for cultivation of sugar cane crop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document