Lawful cultivation establishes deemed tenancy status under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act, irrespective of documentary evidence like rent receipts.

JUDGMENT :

1) Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dated 19 April 1997 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (Tribunal) allowing the Revision Application filed by the Respondents and setting aside the order dated 28 February 1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara (SDO). The SDO had allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioners and had set aside the order dated 29 June 1985 passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Satara holding that Petitioners are now the tenants of the land under the provisions of Section 70(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). The order was passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon in a Reference made to him by the Civil Judge Junior Division under the provisions of Section 85A of the Act in Regular Civil Suit No.92/1977.

2) Agricultural lands bearing Survey No.705/1, 702/5, 705/13 situated at Village-Limb, Taluka and District-Satara are the subject matter of the present case, which are hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit lands.’ The suit lands were originally owned by Mahadu Mali who had two sons, Krishna and Hari. It appears that Hari did not have any issues whereas Krishna had one daughter named Thakubai. Krishna executed gift-deed dated 27 March 1940 in favour of Thakubai and accordingly Mutation Entry No. 3812 was certified mutating the name of Thakubai in respect of the suit lands as owner thereof.

3) Thakubai filed Regular Civil Suit No.92/1977 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Satara against Laxman Daji Vernekar and his heirs seeking injunction against the Defendants from obstructing Plaintiff’s possession of the suit land. Alternate prayer was made for seeking recovery of possession of the suit lands together with mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit. Defendants appeared in the suit and claimed possession of the suit lands.

4) Defendants raised a plea that Daji Ram Vernekar was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit land prior to the year 1935 on basis of sharing of ½ portion of crops. It was claimed that tenancy rights of Daji Ram Vernekar were mutated in the revenue records. Since Defendants raised a plea that they are tenants in respect of the suit lands, the Civil Court made an order of reference under the provisions of Section 85A of the Act to decide whether the Defendant in the suit is the tenant of the Plaintiff in the suit land since 1935 till the date of filing of the suit.

5) The Reference was registered as Tenancy Case No.6/1984 in the Court of Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Satara who conducted enquiry into the Reference and proceeded to pass order dated 29 June 1985 holding that Defendants are not the tenants of the Plaintiff in the suit land since1935 under the provisions of section 70(b) of the Act.

6) Defendants filed Appeal No.92.1985 before the SDO, Satara challenging the order dated 29 June 1985 passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon. The SDO proceeded to reverse the order of the Tenancy Awal Karkoon by allowing the Appeal preferred by the Defendants and held that Defendants were in legal possession of the suit lands as tenants since the year 1955 and that it would therefore be presumed that they were in possession of the land in the year 1935 as well. Aggrieved by the order dated 28 February 1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Plaintiffs filed Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which came to be allowed by order dated 19 April 1997. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and confirmed the order of the Tenancy Awal Karkoon. The Reference has thus been answered in the negative. The Petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the judgment and order dated 19 April 1997 passed by the Tribunal.

7) The petition has been admitted by order dated 11 August 1997 by passing interim order that even if Petitioners succeed in the suit, the execution would not be resorted to till the final decision in this petition. During pendency of the petition, se