The landlord's entitlement to recover possession is limited to lands not exceeding one economic holding, emphasizing the importance of the eviction notice's specifications.

JUDGEMENT

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. The appellants are the legal heirs of original landlord, Keshav Bhaurao Yeole (hereinafter referred to as “landlord” for ease of reference). Survey No. 291 (admeasuring 26 acres 13 guntas) and Survey No. 290/1 & 290/2 (admeasuring 8 acres 21 guntas) had been given on lease to Respondent Nos. 2 & 5 (now deceased) namely Murlidhar Damodar Modhave & Bhausaheb Damodar Modhave and Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.11.06 14:02:35 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified Respondent No.1 namely Kundalik Damodar Modhave (now deceased) respectively, (hereinafter referred to as “tenants”) through two separate lease deeds dated 30.08.1962, for a period of 13 years. The lease in respect of Survey No. 291 was specifically executed for cultivation of sugarcane crop, whereas the lease for Survey No.290/1 & 290/2 were for cultivation, generally.

2. On the expiration of the tenure of the lease, a notice (dated 05.09.1975) for termination of tenancy (hereinafter referred to as ‘notice’) had been issued to the tenants. The landlord sought to recover possession for the purpose of personal cultivation. It was stated in the notice that the tenanted land was the principal source of income for the family and that their livelihood was dependent on the cultivation of such lands. It is critical to note at the very outset that the notice pertained to land bearing Survey No.291 only and no separate notice of termination of tenancy was issued in respect of land bearing Survey No. 290/1 & 290/2.

3. Since the tenant did not voluntarily relinquish his possession in response to the notice, the landlord initiated proceedings1 for 1 Tenancy Case No. 2/1977 resumption of tenanted lands before the Court of Tenancy Awal Karkun, Rahuri (hereinafter referred to as ‘original authority’) under Section 2 9 read with Section 43A (1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 2. (for short ‘the Act’). Through these proceedings, the landlord had sought to recover possession of lands leased under both lease deeds, that is, Survey No. 291 and Survey No. 290/1 & 290/2.

4. In order to decide the lis, the original authority had framed four issues for consideration. The issues framed and summary of findings in respect of each issue are tabulated hereinbelow for ease of reference:

Issues Findings

1. Whether the applicant is the landlord of the suit land? Yes, suit lands were owned by applicant.

2. Whether the opponents are the tenants of the suit land? Only Opponents no. 1,2,5 are tenants of the land in dispute; no evidence led to prove that there was a partition in the joint family of the tenants

3. Whether the notices for termination of tenancy are served upon the opponents and are valid one? Yes, notice for termination of tenancy had been served on Opponents no.

1,2,3 on 24.10.75, 24.9.75 and 30.9.75 respectively and notice is a valid notice

4. Whether the landlord requires the suit lands? Yes, landlord has proved that he requires land for bonafide personal cultivation 2 The Act has since been renamed as the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 by Maharashtra Act 24 of 2012

5. Ultimately, the original authority allowed the application of the landlord3 and directed that 22 acres of the suit lands4 (33 acres 21 guntas) was to be restored to him. The direction for restoration of 22 acres of the suit land was on the premise that the applicant (landlord) was ‘entitled for possession of so much of land as would result in both the landlord and tenants holding thereafter in the total and equal area for personal cultivation’. The reasoning of the original authority in this regard is extracted below:

“The lands held by the opponent