Back
1996 Supreme(Guj) 267
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.Bhatt
BHAIJIBHAI KALIDAS - Appellant
Versus
ICHCHHABEN - Respondent
S.C.A. 1257 of 1995
Decided On : 06/27/1996
Headnote:
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 - Section 4 - Petitioners after death of proceedings came to be start by said authority - After the inquiry it was held that deceased father of petitioners herein was not a tenant and was not entitled to purchase disputed land of Tenancy Act as was related held that was father-in-law of respondent herein - He also held that respondent daughters of deceased were entitled to file a suit of Tenancy Act to obtain possession of land in question - Being aggrieved by aforesaid order had filed Tenancy – Held, Court is also obliged to consider intent and object of provisions made by legislature underlying purport and ultimate desideratum of provisions of have recognized two classes of tenants contractual tenant and statutory tenant who can be described for brevity sake deemed tenant - Deemed tenant or statutory tenant is prescribed and defined to mean person who lawfully cultivates any land belonging to another person if land is not cultivated personally by owner and if person is not a member of owners family or a servant on payment basis in cash or kind but not any share of hired labor cultivating the land personal supervision of owner or any member of owners family or mortgagee in possession - Thus is in very nature of things that if members of family were to cultivate there would hardly be any case of tenancy - If other members who are cultivating land of owner are members of family then in that case they cannot claim to be tenants - So is not factual scenario in present case - Court has not slightest hesitation in holding that decease cannot be said to be a member of family of owner - On contrary there is credible dependable and weighty evidence on record to suggest that deceased was cultivating land of owner as a tenant - It is explicit from record of present case that there was relationship of master and tenant and not relationship by marriage when possession was given and tenant entered into disputed land as early as in year - Petition allowed(Para 24)
( 1 ) COULD the petitioners be said to be members of the owners family so that they can be held to be deemed tenants under Sec. 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act for short) is the heart and theme of the petition on hand under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) WITH a view to appreciating the aforesaid important question, a few material relevant facts may be set out at the outset. The agricultural land admeasuring 6 acres-2 gunthas situated in the sim of Dholka was owned by one Bai Pasiben, widow of Naran Mathur, who is hereinafter referred to as "the disputed land". Owner Pasiben who has now expired was the mother of respondent Nos. 1 and 4. After the death of Pasiben, the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Dholka had started proceedings under Sec. 32-G of the Tenancy Act. It may be mentioned that the Mamlatdar and a. L. T. , Dholka had started inquiry under Sec. 32g in the year 1961, but since Bai pasiben was widow, the right of then tenant to purchase the disputed land came to be deferred and postponed by an order dated 30-11-1961.
( 3 ) THEREFORE, after the death of Pasiben, proceedings came to be started under sec. 32-G by the said authority. After the inquiry, it was held that deceased Bhaijibhai kalidas, the father of the petitioners herein was not a tenant and was not entitled to purchase the disputed land under Sec. 4 of the Tenancy Act as he was related to pasiben. He held that Bhaijibhai Kalidas was father-in-law of Jiviben, respondent No. 4 herein. He also held that respondent Nos. 1 and 4, daughters of deceased Pasiben were entitled to file a suit under Sec. 70 (b) of the Tenancy Act to obtain possession of the land in question from the said Bhaijibhai Kalidas.
( 4 ) DECEASED Bhaijibhai Kalidas being aggrieved by the aforesaid order had filed Tenancy Appeal No. 112 of 1975 before the Assistant Collector, Dholka which also came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 31-1-1976. The matter was carried further in a revision by filing Revision Application No. 193 of 1976 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (g. R. T. for short) Ahmedabad which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 8-9-1976 whereby the judgment and order recorded by the lower Courts came to be quashed.
( 5 ) BY virtue of the judgment and order of the G. R. T. as aforesaid, the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. with direction to give his clear finding regarding tenancy rights under Sec. 32g of the Act. It was also observed that he had no authority to discuss the provisions of Sec. 70 (b) of the Tenancy Act and to give instructions about the same in the inquiry under Sec. 32g. It was, therefore, directed that no such instructions or orders should be passed by him. Thus, the revision was allowed and remanded for a fresh inquiry in light of the directions and observations.
( 6 ) AFTER remand, the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Dholka upon fresh inquiry and evidence, found deceased Bhaijibhai Kalidas the father of the petitioners to be the tenant of the disputed land and fixed the purchase price which was to be paid in eight instalments by passing an order dated 16-1-1984.
( 7 ) OBVIOUSLY, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , respondent No. 1 had filed tenancy appeal No. 125 of 1984 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Appeals, Ahmedabad who by his judgment and order dated 15-9-1987 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 preferred Revision No. 742 of 1987 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal allowed the Revision and quashed the judgments and orders passed by the appellate authority and Mamlatdar and A. L. T. The Tribunal inter alia found that the relationship between deceased Pasiben and deceased Bhaijibhai Kalidas to be that of Vevai and Vevan, deceased Bhaijibhai Kalidas would be a member of the family of the said Pasiben. It is in this context that the Tribunal held that deceased bhaijibhai, the father of the pet
