Heirs of a deceased certificated landlord must prove their own bona fide requirement for personal cultivation when seeking possession of land under Section 33-B.

1. This Special Civil Application under Art.227 of the Constitution of India raises a question of law as to the interpretation of S.33 - B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. The question of law raised in this case relates to the rights of the heirs of the certificated landlord to get possession of the land under S.33 - B where the certificated landlord dies after he makes an application for possession of the land under S. 33 - B.

3. To properly appreciate the points involved, it would be necessary to state a few undisputed facts. The land, Survey No. 81/2, admeasuring 13 acres situate at Darphal, Taluka Madha in Sholapur District belonged to one Deepchand and was in possession of one Keshav as a tenant. Deepchand obtained a certificate under S.88 - C of the Act and after serving the tenant with a notice made an application for possession of the land against Keshay on 9-1-1962 under S.33 - B of the Act before the Tenancy Awal Karkun. Keshav died during the pendency of the application before the Tenancy Awal Karkun. The petitioners were brought on record as heirs. The Tenancy Aval Karkun rejected the application of Deepchand on the ground that he did not bona fide require the suit land for personal cultivation. This decision of the Tenancy Aval Karkun was challenged by Deepchand by an appeal before the Special Deputy Colleetor for Tenancy Appeals, Sholapur. During the pendency of the appeal, on December 1, 1964, Deepchand also died, and the respondents 1 to 5 were brought on record as his heirs. The appellate authority reappreciated the evidence led by the parties and passed an order for delivery of possession on the basis that the deceased landlord had proved that he required the land bona fide for his personal cultivation. The bona fides or otherwise of the heirs of Deepchand were not considered presumably on the ground that the original application was made by Deepchand. In this view of the matter, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and passed an order for delivery of possession of the entire land to the respondents. The petitioners preferred a revisional application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that in view of the death of the original landlord during the pendency of the proceedings, it was necessary to consider the bona fides of his heirs, and for that purpose the matter requires to be remanded. Since, however, the Tribunal was of the view that when the landlord dies at the appellate stage, the question of his successors' bona fides cannot be taken into consideration, he negatived the submissions on behalf of the petitioners, and confirmed the finding of the appellate court. In the result, the revision application was dismissed, and hence the petitioners have filed this Special Civil Application.

4. When the petition came up for final hearing before Hajarnavis, J., on behalf of the petitioners, two contentions were raised. Firstly, it was contended that in view of the death of the original landlord, the bona fide requirements of the heirs of the landlord alone ought to be considered; and secondly, on merits, it was contended that the landlord did not require the land bona fide for his personal cultivation. On the question of few, his attention was drawn to two decisions of single Judges of this Court which have taken contrary views on the point in question. The first one was in the case of Shankar Gopal Jagdale v. Prabhakar Kulkarni , 72 Bom LR 695, wherein Vaidya, J. took the view that although the heirs of the deceased landlord are entitled to contin