Important Point:
The Tenancy Act is brought into operation on account of disputes between landholders and tenants and also for ensuring full and efficient use of lands for agriculture; and to see that landlords do not use devices to evict tenants for some reason or the other. The provision of this Act therefore is to further the interests of tenants who may be ousted by landlords in their own interest.

Anant S. Dave, J.

The appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 08.10.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.7244 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge [Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri] confirmed the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.BA.817/1992.

2. Certain facts recorded about earlier proceedings in para 2 about round of litigations undertaken by the parties are not in dispute, which reads as under:

In the year 1962, proceedings under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy Act were initiated by the competent authority by registering Tenancy Case No. 371/1962 for the lands bearing Survey No. 1272 admeasuring 2 Acres 29 Gunthas and Survey No. 1542 admeasuring 0.0 Acres 38 Gunthas situated in the sim of Village Changa, Taluka Petlad, District Anand. The competent authority vide order dated 26.11.1962 held that the predecessors of the petitioner and original opponents nos. 2 to 5 are not the tenants of the lands in question. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 179/1982 before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector after hearing the respective parties and after considering the material produced before it, allowed the said appeal. Against the said order, the respondents no. 1 to 1/3 preferred Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 2043/1982 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 03.09.1984 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad for fresh inquiry. Pursuant thereto, the Mamlatdar and ALT issued fresh notices to the concerned parties, vide order dated 20.12.1990 held that the deceased Shanabhai Ghanabhai Baraiya was a tenant and he is entitled to purchase the said suit lands from the landlords under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act ["the Act" for short]. Against the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT Petlad, the respondent no. 1 and his heirs preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 412 of 1992 before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 06.08.1992 rejected the said appeal.

In addition to the above, as appeared from the record, proceedings under Section 32 1B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 [for short, 'BT & AL Act'] were initiated by registering Tenancy Case No.127/77 and by order dated 30.04.1978 the proceedings were dropped by holding that the provisions of the said section were not applicable to the facts of the case. The heirs of the deceased tenant preferred Tenancy Appeal No.1408/1989 before the Deputy Collector, Kheda which came to be dismissed on 17.08.1989 with observation that tenant may file an application under Section 32(o) of the BT & AL Act, if so advised. Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the above nature of observations, landlord approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing Revision Application No.TEN.BA.320/83 in which the Tribunal struck down direction qua Section 32(o) of the Act by an order dated 10.09.1985.

3. Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India discloses no reasons and it referred to events of earlier round of litigation in brief and what transpired before the lower authorities viz. Mamlatdar & ALT, Deputy Collector and the Tribunal for which agreement is recorded. In absence of any discussion of the nature of findings, conclusions of lower authority as are found just and proper, the writ petition came to be dismissed and the same deserves to be interferred with. At the same time, taking us through the merit of the appeal, it is contended that a statement made by deceased-tenant Shanabhai Ghanabhai Baraiya recorded on 14.10.1962 in proceedings under Section 32G that since the year 1947 deceased Shanabhai was not cultivating the