The main legal point established in the judgment is that if a Public Trust is exempted from the relevant provisions of the MTAL Act, the tenancy is not heritable, and the legal heirs of the tenant are not entitled in law to resist eviction under sec. 120(c) of the MTAL Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is assailing the interlocutory order dtd. 21/1/2014, rendered by the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur ("MRT" for short), in Revenue Revision 18/TNC/2003-04, whereby the revisionist Mr. Datta Gaikwad respondent 1 was permitted to amend the memo of revision and raise additional grounds and the final order dtd. 24/3/2014, whereby the MRT set aside the order dtd. 31/7/2003, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad ("SDO") in Revenue Case 2/59/98-99 of mouza Umarkhed, District Yavatmal and remitted the matter to the SDO for fresh enquiry and decision. The order of the SDO which is set aside by the MRT allows the application preferred by the petitioner under sec. 120 (c) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agriculture Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act ("MTAL Act" for short) and directs respondent 1 Mr. Datta Gaikwad to deliver possession of the subject agricultural land to the petitioner.

2. The factual matrix lies in an extremely narrow compass. The petitioner is a Public Trust initially registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act and then under the Bombay Public Trust Act ("Trust Act" for short).

3. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust" for short) owns various agricultural lands including agricultural field survey 209, admeasuring 35 acres, situated at mouza - Umarkhed, District Yavatmal ("subject agricultural land" for short).

4. Father of respondent 1 (respondent 1 expired during the pendency of the petition and is represented by legal heirs respondents 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) Mr. Mahipati Gaikwad was in possession of the subject agricultural land and in view of the provisions of the MTAL Act acquired the status of tenant. Mr. Mahipati Gaikwad expired, and while the exact date of death is not discernible from record, the application under sec. 120(c) of the MTAL Act, which was allowed by the SDO, is preferred after the death of Mr. Mahipati Gaikwad, on the premise, that in view of the exemption certificate obtained by the Trust under sec. 129 of the said enactment, the tenancy of Mr. Mahipati Gaikwad is not heritable under sec. 54 of the said enactment, and the possession of the legal heir Mr. Datta Gaikwad is illegal.

5. The SDO, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Shriram Mandir Sansthan alias Shri Ram Sansthan Pusda vs. Vatsalabai and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 657, held that in view of the exclusion of sec. 54 of the MTAL Act by sec. 129 thereof, the tenancy of deceased Mr. Mahipati Gaikwad is not heritable.

6. Mr. Datta Gaikwad approached the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, challenging the order of eviction passed by the SDO. Perusal of the memo of appeal reveals that the order of the SDO was challenged on the ground of denial of opportunity to adduce evidence and that the status as trustees of the persons representing the Trust is not verified.

7. The appeal preferred by Mr. Datta Gaikwad came to be transferred to the MRT and registered as Revenue Revision 18/TNC/2003-04 of Mouza Umarkhed.

8. Mr. Datta Gaikwad preferred an application dtd. 2/9/2013 for production of documents, which application was opposed by the Trust. Mr. Datta Gaikwad further preferred an application seeking permission to amend the memo of revision and raise additional grounds. Mr. Datta Gaikwad further preferred another application dtd. 29/10/2013 seeking production of documents.

9. The MRT passed an interlocutory order dtd. 21/1/2014 allowing the application seeking permission to amend the memo of revision and raise additional grounds. The MRT observed that the documents ought to have been filed before the SDO. However, the MRT laconically observed that the submission of Mr. Datta Gaikwad that the documents were then not available, is acceptable.

10. The additional grounds which Mr. Datta Gaikwad was permitted to raise may be briefly noted. Mr. Datta Gaikwad contended that the Trust ceased to be the owner of the subject agricultural land in view of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Propri