Back
Bombay High Court
(OCTOBER 12, 2004)
Babu Hari Patil
Versus
Rama Ananda Jadhav
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 70(b) and 4 - Claim of status of "deemed tenants". - Where tenants were cultivating suit land for 7-8 years prior to sale deed and landlord never cultivated land personally therefore tenants entitled to claim status of "deemed tenant". AIR 1953 SC 58; 1986 Mh LJ (SC) 955 : (1986) 4 SCC 447; (1975) 1 SCC 858; 1962 NLJ (SC) 682 : AIR 1964 SC 1320; 2004 (1) Mh LJ 285 - Relied on. 1997 TLR (Vol. XXV) 6 - Approved. - At this stage it may be noticed that before the tenants came into possession of the land in question in 1975 the land was being cultivated by other tenants namely Chougule and Mahar. It appears that they abandoned their right in the land in question and thereafter the petitioners got into possession of the said land and were cultivating it lawfully for 7-8 years prior to the sale-deed dated 26.4.1983. There is no dispute that the landlord never cultivated the land in question personally. The MRT has also relied upon the other circumstances such as agreement for sale dated 20.5.1990 executed between the landlord and tenant in respect of 41 Aces out of Gat No. 1222. The MRT also noticed that the landlord never initiated any proceedings against the tenants for their eviction. It is thus clear from the judgment of the MRT which, in view of the error in law committed by the SDO, was required to reassess and evaluate the evidence on record to reach a conclusion that the tenant was lawfully cultivating the lands in question. Keeping in view the evidence that was produced on record and relied upon by the MRT, holding respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as "deemed tenants’’ under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, cannot be called perverse and cannot be said to have resulted in manifest injustice. As a matter of fact the SDO overlooked the evidence and unnecessarily gave importance to the record of rights and the fact that no rent receipt was produced on record, which, in Court’s opinion, was against the provisions of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings, recorded by ALT and the MRT need no interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The law is thus clear that even without their being an entry in the tenancy column or a rent note or a rent receipt in favour of a person, who is in lawful possession, must be declared as "deemed tenant" under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act irrespective of the fact whether or not the authority of such person is derived directly from the owner of the land. All that is required under that section is "lawful" cultivation by a person other than the member of the family of the landlord subject to other conditions specified in that section for claiming a status of the "deemed tenant". In the circumstances Court has no hesitation in holding that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were cultivating the land lawfully and are, therefore, entitled to claim status of "deemed tenant" as contemplated under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. In the result writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
D. B. BHOSALE, J.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution is directed against the Judgement and order dated 28. 6. 1990 passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal (for short, "mrt") by which the revision filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3-tenants was allowed by setting aside the order dated 30. 12. 1985 passed by the Leave Reserve Deputy Collector, kolhapur in Tenancy Appeal No. 37 of 1985 and 41 of 1985 and the order of Tenancy Awal Karkoon dated 19. 5. 1984 was maintained.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioners are the purchasers of 80 Ares of land out of 1 Hector and 91 Ares from Gat No. 1222, situated at Village paragaon, Taluka Hatkanagale. They claim to have purchased 80 Ares of land by a registered conditional sale deed dated 26. 4. 1983 from respondent no. 4 - landlord and since then they are in possession of the said portion of land out of gat No. 1222. 2. 1 This petition arises out of the proceedings initiated by the respondents-tenants (for short? "tenants") who filed an application under section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act (for short, "tenancy Act") seeking declaration that they are tenants of Gat No. 1222 admeasuring 1 sector 91 Ares (for short, "land in question" ). Though respondent no. 4 landlord (for short "landlord") was party in the said proceedings he chose not to appear before any of the authorities below. The Tenancy Awal Karkoon (for shore "alt") after considering the material placed before him and the statements of the tenant and his witnesses, declared respondent nos. 1 to 3 as tenants of the land in question. Being aggrieved by that order, the landlord and the petitioner-purchaser filed independent appeals bearing Tenancy Appeal nos. 41/1965 and 37/1985 respectively before the sub-Divisional Officer (for short "the SDO" ). Both the appeals were allowed. The tenants carried the matter further in revision before the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal (for short "the MRT" ). The MRT allowed the revision by its judgment and order dated 28. 6. 1990 which is being challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ petition. 2. 2 The record reveals that the tenants had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 113/1984 against the landlord and the petitioners seeking permanent injunction against them. The suit was dismissed on 13. 2. 1990 i. e. during pendency of the revision application bearing MRT. KP 31 of 1984 and MRT. KP 32 of 1986. Another suit was filed by the petitioners bearing R. C. S. No. 32/1986 against the tenants for injunction simplicitor restraining them from obstructing possession in 80 Ares of land purchased by them. Interalia the subject matter of both the suits ana the instant writ petition is one and same. That suit came to be dismissed for default on 10. 11. 1965.
( 3 ) IT is against this backdrop I heard learned counsel appearing for the parties for quite sometime, With the assistance of Mr. Kamble, learned counsel for the petitioners I went through the record and the impugned orders as also, the judgment of the Civil Court passed in Regular Civil suit No. 113/1984. Mr. Kambale contended that the tribunal was wrong in recording the findings that the tenants were in lawful possession of the entire land in question and that is not consistent with revenue record which clearly show that the name of the petitioners was entered in the kabjedar Column after they purchased 80 Ares of land and they were put in possession of the said portion of the land. In view thereof, according to Mr. Kamble, the tenant cannot betreated as "deemed tenant" as contemplated under section 4 of the Tenancy Act in respect of 80 Ares of land purchased by the petitioners. He placed heavy reliance on the findings recorded by the Civil Court in r. C. S. No. 113/1984 to contend that the petitioner was put in possession by the landlord on 26. 4. 1983. He further submitted that panchnama dated 15. 6. 1983 was misread by the authorities below for holding that the tenants were in possessio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
