ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Chavan, J .)

1. This appeal by landlords is directed against judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing Writ Petition No.2090 of 1989 and remanding the proceedings under Section 19(1)(d) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as .Tenancy Act.) for fresh adjudication at the lowest level of Tahsildar, Anjangaon.

2. The appellant Sarda Education Trust owns field Survey No.19 of village Wadali, Tahsil : Daryapur, District : Amravati. Out of 12.20 acres of land in this survey number which was in possession of tenant Sitaram he surrendered 8.20 acres in favour of the appellant/ trust by deed of relinquishment on 17.07.1970 and retained for himself as a tenant the remaining 4 acres of the land. According to the appellant, in the year 1977-78 he inducted respondent No.1 Mukund as a sub-tenant. Sitaram expired and respondent No.2 Prakash is his legal representative.

3. The appellant trust which has been granted exemption under Section 129 of the Tenancy Act filed application under Section 19(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act for recovery of possession of four acres of land with respondent No.1 Mukund on the ground that the original tenant Sitaram sublet the land and did not cultivate it personally.

This application was filed on 01.10.1983. The Tahsildar held in favour of the appellant by his order dated 31.01.1986. The tenant's appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer was rejected by an order dated 20th February, 1986. Revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was rejected by order dated 30th September, 1988. Sub-tenant's attempt to seek review of the said order also failed, since the tribunal rejected the review application by order dated 20th July, 1989.

4. Aggrieved by orders passed against him by the tenancy authorities the sub-tenant filed aforementioned writ petition. He contended that authorities below were not justified in holding that he has become sub-tenant, because, according to him, after the relinquishment of 8.20 acres of land in favour of the appellant society the remaining land was owned by Sitaram and therefore, respondent No.1 Mukund could not have become sub-tenant of the land owned by Sitaram. It was further contended that the application under Section 19(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act was itself untenable since it has not been filed by all the trustees in view of the provisions of Section 39 of the Tenancy Act and Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act. Respondent No.1, therefore, sought quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the tenancy authorities in proceedings under Section 19(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act.

February, 1996 the learned single Judge overruled the objections of the landlord trust that respondent Mukund, who was only a sub-tenant, could not have filed revision or review before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. He then held that the resolution dated 25.12.1984 authorising one Shri J.M. Laddha to take out proceedings against the tenants could not validate the proceedings in the absence of other trustees being made parties to the proceedings. The learned single Judge relied on decision of Gujrat High Court in Nanalal Girdharlal & anr. V. Gulamnabi Jamalgbhai Motorwala & ors, reported at AIR 1973 Gujarat 131 and concluded that the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Indian Trusts Act .and in any case the principle embodied in Section 47 and 48 must apply to public, religious and charitable trusts under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. and, therefore, held that it was necessary to go into the question whether the delegation to the Secretary of the trust to initiate proceedings was legal, proper and covered by Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act or not. He, therefore, set aside the orders impugned before him in the petition and remanded the matter back to the Tahsil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document