IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that tenancy rights can be terminated not only by efflux of time but also by changes in land use as per statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

1. The papers of Writ Petition No.3102 of 1995 were permitted to be reconstructed. Writ Petition No.10925 of 2017 was admitted vide order dated 21st February, 2024.

2. This Court vide order dated 25th June, 2013 observed that there was mis joinder of causes of action as Writ Petition No.3102 of 1995 challenged the order of Assistant Judge, Sangli in Civil Appeal No.435 of 1969 reversing the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli recording compromise decree dated 17th September, 1958 and also the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [for short “MRT”] dated 23rd March, 1995 under Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short “Tenancy Act”]. This Court permitted the Petitioners to file an independent Petition to challenge the order of MRT and retained the challenge to the Civil Court order in Writ Petition No. 3102 of 1995. Subsequently Writ Petition No. 10925 of 2017 came to be filed. Common submissions were advanced and the Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

3. There is a chequered history to this litigation which has commenced way back in the year 1952 leading to several rounds of litigation between the parties which is set out hereinafter briefly.

4. The subject land is Survey No.99/2 admeasuring 13 acre and 18 guntas. By registered lease deed dated 29th January, 1942, the subject land was leased for period of four years to father of the Petitioner No.1 i.e. Dadoba Yedekar by the owner i.e. Mahadev Dattatray Bhide. During the subsistence of the lease, on 23rd June, 1945, notification was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the State Executive Council of Sangli State published in the Gazette dated 30th June, 1945 for acquisition of land for northern extension scheme of Sangli town. By Huzur Order (Royal Decree) dated 6th March, 1948, issued by Sangli State the subject land was declared to form the corpus of a Trust, with Sangli Municipal Council as trustee to implement the object of Trust of providing water and drainage scheme. On 17th June, 1950, Trust came to be registered.

5. The subject land continued to be under the cultivation and possession of Dadoba. In the interregnum, in the year 1948, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 came on the statute book repealing the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 to the extent mentioned in Schedule-I.

6. Sangli Municipal Council filed a suit being Chalu Vahiwat Suit No. 3 of 1952 in the Court of Mamlatdar Miraj for possession of the subject land on the ground that Dadoba was only tenant for the year 1949-50. The Mamlatdar’s Court dismissed the suit on 13th October, 1952 holding that Dadoba was annual tenant against which Revision Application was preferred before Assistant Collector which came to be allowed. Dadoba challenged the order of the Assistant Collector by filing Civil Revision Application No.1386 of 1952 before this Court which by order dated 26th August, 1955 set the order of the Assistant Collector and held Dadoba to be the annual tenant of the agricultural land and unless the tenancy is determined, the possession of the subject land cannot be recovered from Dadoba.

7. The Sangli Municipal Counsel terminated the tenancy of the Dadoba by notice dated 25th February, 1956 calling upon him to hand over possession of the agricultural land on 6th June, 1956. For recovery of possession, Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 1957 was filed in the Sangli Court. On 17th September, 1958, Dadoba and Sangli Municipal Council entered into compromise terms under which it was agreed that Dadoba will be the tenant of Sangli Municipal Council for the period of 7 years from 1957 to 31st March, 1964 and after expiry of the said period, Dadoba would hand over the possession of the subject land to Sangli Municipal Council.

8. Due to non compliance of the compromise terms by Dadoba, Sangli Municipal Council filed Durkhast No.140 of 1964 seeking possession. The execution was r