JUDGMENT - BOBDE S.A., J.:---This is a petition by a person who had obtained possession of the lands in question under an agreement to sale from a landlord who had resumed possession of the land under section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, for short "the Bombay Tenancy Act", for bona fide personal cultivation.

2. The lands in question are situated at Village Herale, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. They were owned by one Narhar Narayan Kulkarni, and were in possession of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as tenants. Narhar Narayan Kulkarni died on 1st November, 1971 leaving behind the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as heirs, "Kulkarnis" for short. The said Kulkarnis initiated proceedings under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act against respondent No. 1 and obtained an exemption certificate. On 20th June, 1970 they obtained possession of the land under section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Kulkarnis) executed agreement for sale in favour of the petitioner for consideration of Rs. 7,000/- and in pursuance of the agreement the revenue records have also been duly mutated to give effect to the above agreement.

3. There is no dispute that the petitioner has received possession of the land. It must, therefore, be observed that ex facie the Kulkarnis have ceased using the lands in question for bona fide personal cultivation.

4. On 21st March, 1980 the respondent No. 1 the former tenant came to know of the transaction between Kulkarnis and the petitioner. He made an application under section 39 read with section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy Act for restoration of possession of the suit lands. This application was made on the basis that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the heirs of Kulkarni have breached the conditions upon which the possession of the suit lands was given to him.

5. On 19th June, 1986 the Tenancy Awal Karkoon allowed the application and ordered that the petitioner be evicted from a half portion of the suit lands and that the possession should be restored to the former tenant, the respondent No. 1. The Tenancy Awal Karkoon held that the landlord was under obligation to keep the lands under his personal cultivation at least for a period of twelve years as required by section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The landlord had, therefore, breached the conditions by transferring possession of the land under an agreement to sale on 9th February, 1978.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 20th January, 1986. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Tenancy Awal Karkoon. It appears from the order that the Sub-Divisional Officer has wrongly described the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, the former tenant, as a transaction of sale. In fact, it is only an agreement to sale accompanied by delivery of possession.

7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal the petitioner preferred a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. On 27th March, 1987 the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision and concurred with the findings of the Court below that the transfer is in breach of section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is impugned in this petition.

8. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, mainly raised two contentions against the order. Firstly, according to the learned Counsel, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ignored the fact that the application by the tenant is barred by limitation of two years provided by section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Section 29(1), which is relevant, reads as follows :-

"29(1) A tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any of the provisions of this Act may apply in writing for such possession to the Mamlatdar. The application shall be made in such form as may be prescribed and within a period of two years from the date on which the rig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document