S.B.MAJMUDAR - (1.)This petition raises a short but an interesting an question regarding the legality of deposition given by the general power of attorney holder of a party before the tenancy authorities. The learned Member of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal therein after referred to as the Tribunal) Mr. V.B. Bakshi has taken the view that the general power of attorney holder of a party cannot depose on oath before the Mamlatdar holding an inquiry under sec. 32-G read with sec. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act J948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and accordingly the learned Member of the Tribunal has remanded the proceedings for a fresh decision by the Mamlatdar. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal has been challenged by the dissatisfied applicants in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)A few relevant facts deserve to be noted at this stage. The petitioner no. 1 is the trustee and administrator of an institution known as Sanskrit Pathshala functioning at Petlad District Kaira. Petitioner No. 2 is a trust which is running and financing the said pathshala. They have taken land in dispute on lease from another trust known as Narsinhji Maharaj Mandir. Trust respondent no. 3 herein. Respondent no. 2 is the Mahant of the said Narsinhji Maharaj Mandir and respondent no. 1 is a person who claims to be the tenant of the disputed land. Respondent no. 1 filed a tenancy application being cannot Case No. 32 and 31 before the Mamlatdar Petlad for a declaration that he is the tenant of the hands bearing S. No. 101 situated in the sim of Petlad admeasuring 2 bighas out of 5 acres 3 gunthas and also for a declaration that he has become the deemed purchaser and for the possession of the said land. The said application after inquiry and recording of evidence came to be dismissed by the Mamlatdar by his order dated 8-2-1979 holding that the respondent no. 1 was not the tenant of the disputed land.
(3.)Thereafter the respondent no. 1 carried the matter in appeal to the Deputy Collector Petlad by way of Tenancy Appeal No. 105 of 1979 which was dismissed by the Deputy Collector. The respondent no. 1 thereafter carried the matter in revision under sec. 76 of the Act before the Tribunal. In the said revision application before the Tribunal a contention was raised for the first time on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that in the inquiry held by the mamlatdar the general power of attorney holder of petitioner no. 1 (original opponent no. 1 before the Tribunal) had given his deposition as power of attorney holder of Amratlal Ramanlal Parikh who claimed to be the Trustee and Administrator of Sanskrit pathshala Instruction Petlad. It was contended that the power of attorney holder has no legal right to give deposition as a power of attorney and hence the sail deposition was recorded contrary to law and was required to be expunged from the record. The learned Member of the Tribunal accepted the said contention raised on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and directed that the matter be remanded back in as much as the petitioner not (opponent no. 1 before the Tribunal) had to be given opportunity to lead evidence by examining himself.