- (1.)A reference in this special civil application has been necessitated by the fact that there has been a difference of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court upon the proper construction of Sections 14 and 27 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (No. LXVII of 1948), which sections are equivalent to the provisions of Sections 19 and 33 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (No. XCIX of 1958 ). For the sake of convenience, we shall hereafter refer to these Acts as the "bombay Act" and the "vidarbha Act" respectively. Our learned Brother Padhye J. had referred the following question for our decision:
"whether sub-letting by a tenant of a portion of the lands held by him under a lease gives right to the landlord to terminate the lease of the tenant under Section 19 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958?"
We have added the words in brackets so as to leave no doubt that it is with the Vidarbha Act with which we are concerned.
(2.)THE question arises on the following facts: The petitioner, Vijaya Govindram Ramavat, is the landlord. He owned survey No. 126 of village Akoli-Jahagir, taluq Akot, district Akola, admeasuring 14 acres 21 gunthas. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Bhayyalal Chhotulal Pardeshi and Kisan Dashrath Randhe were the joint tenants of the field. On 30th March 1963 the landlord applied for possession of this field on the ground that his joint tenants, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, had sublet part of the field to the respondent No. 3, Gulabrao. Soon after this application was filed by the landlord, the tenants applied on 2nd November 1963 under Section 36 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, to eject the respondent No. 3 from the field, on the ground that he was not a sub-lessee but that he had forcibly taken possession and cultivated 6 acres 20 gunthas out of the total area of the field. Certain orders came to be passed by the Revenue officers upon both those applications which were throughout disposed of by a common order. But on 31st August 1965 the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in two separate revision applications, remanded the entire matter raised in the two applications to the Naib-Tahsildar in order to find out whether the respondent No. 3 Gulabrao, was a sub-lessee; or a co-lessee with the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as he (Gulabrao) had pleaded.
(3.)ON 30th November 1966 the Naib-Tahsildar granted the landlord's application claiming possession of the land from his lessees, respondents. Nos. 1 and 2, and dismissed their application against the respondent No. 3. The Special Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeals), in appeal confirmed these orders of the Naib-Tahsildar on 21st February 1968. Against the Special Deputy Collector's order the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the tenants filed revision applications to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and the Revenue Tribunal allowed their revision applications upon a curious ground. There was a dispute between the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioner as to the extent of the land in possession of the respondent No. 3, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 saying that the respondent No. 3 had taken possession only of 6 acres 20 gunthas, whereas the petitioner was saying that 8 acres were in possession of the respondent No. 3. Now, the Revenue Tribunal held that there was sub-letting and that the area sub-let was 8 acres, but they took the view that since the tenant had commenced proceedings against their alleged sub-lessee, under Section 36 (1) the tenants had rectified their error and were therefore not liable to be elected. The Revenue Tribunal also held that the notice given by the landlord was defective. It may be pointed out here that it was not a point argued before the Revenue Tribunal (or for that matter before any of the Revenue Authorities below at any time) that under the Act sub-letting of a part of the land held by tenant did not entitle the landlord to terminate the tenancy, and that only if the whole of the land was sub-let would the landlord be entitled to terminate the tenancy. Yet, that was the very point which was raised before our learned Brother Padhye J. , when the petition came up before him for hearing and it being point of law our learned Brother noticed a sharp difference of opinion between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court and has therefore referred that question for our decision.