A juridical person, such as an idol or a Sansthan, cannot cultivate land personally within the meaning of the definition of "to cultivate personally" under section 2(12) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958.

ABHYANKAR J.-This order will govern the disposal of all these petition which raise a common question under the Bombay Tenancy and -Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, Act No. XCIX of 1958.

2. The petitioner in all these cases is Shri Kesheoraj Deo Sansthan of Karanja. The Sansthan filed an application against several tenants in respect

of lands held by them, before the Naib-Tahsildar, Murtizapur, claiming possession of the lands under cultivation of the several tenants under section 36 (2), read with rule 16 of the Bombay Tenancy Act of 1958 and the rules made there under applicable in this region. Prior to that the petitioner had issued a notice purporting to be a notice under section 38 of the New Tenancy Act through their advocate to various tenants. One such notice is to be found at page 16 of the paper book in Special Civil Application No. 368 of 1962. The notice recites that the client on whose behalf the notice is given, is a private Sansthan and that one Kesheorao Amte was its Wahiwatdar. Then the notice proceeds to say that tho Sansthan owns property described in the notice and that the Sansthan is entitled to determine the tenancy in respect of the land because the landlord bona .fide requires the land for cultivating it personally. Then certain reasons are given as to why the landlord requires resumption of the land; the principal reason is that cultivation of the land is the main source of income of the Sans than and its establishment and that the land which is yielding income by way of leasing is required to be brought under personal cultivation to increase the return from this property. Similar averments are made in the application filed by the petitioner in the several cases before the Naib-Tahsildar. The Naib-Tahsildar did not issue notice to any of the tenants. He passed a short order rejecting the petition with the following observation:

" The landlord in this case, the deity, has applied for personal cultivations under section 38 of the Bombay Act 99/58 through Manager. As per recent rulings of Bombay Revenue Tribunal, the deity cannot required (v.o.sio.) land for personal cultivation, as the agents requirements cannot be deemed deitys requirement and it cannot be said that the landlord bona fide required the land for personal cultivation vide Case No. Ten./1l42 of 1955, dated 23-8-55 (S.V. Mathad v, V. K. Ajjappalawar). Hence the application is rejected."

3. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer attempted to answer the arguments which were addressed before him on behalf of the petitioner. In repelling the contention of the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer observed as follows:

"It must be seen first whether a deity is capable of cultivating the land personally.

To cultivate personally, means to cultivate on ones own account, 1. by ones own labour, or 2. by the labour of any member of ones family, or 3. under the personal supervision of oneself or of any member of ones family by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share.

The clauses 1 and 2 cannot apply in the present case and it could not be said that the manager who could be cultivating the land is a servant on wages payable in cash. Moreover, the personal supervision of the deity or a member of its family is impossible. The deity cannot therefore cultivate the land personally."

The Sub-Divisional Officer also rejected the contention of the petitioner that the manager was a legal owner and that he could ask for land for his cultivation on the ground that the land was needed for personal cultivation. The Sub. Divisional Officer observed that in that case the possession will be only that of the manager and he could not be deemed to be landlord of the property, the legal owner of the property being the Deosthan. On these findings he dismissed the appeal.

4. The matter was taken before t