DADU NANUBHAI BHAGOJI PATIL Vs. RAMAKANT DATTATRAYA DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (expired) claiming to be the tenant of two pieces of land comprising survey Nos. 60 and 61 of village Arale in Karvir taluka, Dist. Kolhapur, approached this Court challenging the order passed by the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act ), turning down his application under section 32g of the Act. By impugned orders, the authorities viz. original, appellate and revisional authority, rejected the contention of the petitioner in the light of the contention raised by the landlord. It appears that the contention raised by the landlord before the authorities are three fold :

(2.) MR. N. V. Bandiwadekar, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the dispossession of the property, though admitted, that alone will not take away the right conferred by the statute on a tenant under section 32g of the Act, if it is established that he was in possession of the tenanted land on 1-4-1957. This inalienable and unfettered rights conferred by the Statute under section 32g in favour of the tenant has been incorporated by the Legislature to protect the interest of the tenants and that has been so held by the full bench of this Court in 1962 NLJ 700 = (1962) 64 BLR 635 in Ramchandra Anant Joshi vs. Janardan Tulsiram Dube. It was held in that case that the landlord s application for dispossession of his tenant under section 29 read with section 14 was not maintainable on the ground that it was filed after 31st March, 1957. It appears that even a tenant is dispossessed by the order of the court, it has to be ignored if the tenant found to be in possession of the land on 1-4-1957. This position has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1457 in chunibai vs. Narayanrao. Para 20, the Apex Court held thus: But the application under section 29 read with section 14 was not maintainable, as it was filed after April 1, 1957. On this point, we adopt the reasoning and conclusion of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ramchandra Anant vs. Janardan, 1962 NLJ 700 = 64 BLR 635 = AIR 1963 Bom. 79. We agree with the following observations of Chainani C. J. , in the aforesaid case :

(3.) IN view of the legal position propounded by the Supreme Court, the reasoning stated by the authorities in the impugned orders cannot be accepted. None of the reasons stated by the landlord can be accepted. In view of the above discussion, all the orders impugned in the writ petition have to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back to the original authority viz. Additional Tahsildar A. L. T. Karvir, Dist. Kolhapur. The said authority is directed to consider all the contentions of the parties which may be raised before the authorities and application under section 32g of the petitioner has to be considered afresh and decided within six months from today, according to law. Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute in the above terms, There shall be no costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the authorities. Petition allowed.