- (1.)ONE Ukha Hiralal Mali was a tenant in respect of land admeasuring 5 Hectares 13 Ares located in Gat No. 33/1, S. No. 21/2 of village Lon, Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon and the original owner of the said land was Shri Zaverchand Laxmichand. It appears that Ukha Hiralal Mali entered into an agreement of sale with the present respondent in respect of the said land for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/ -. The tenant received the consideration and receipt to that effect as well as possession of the land by the vendee was issued. It is pertinent to note that the agreement of sale was registered and the possession of the subject land was handed over to respondent No. 1. Ukha Hiralal Mali filed R. C. S. No. 96/71 before the Civil Judge (J. D.) Amalner and claimed possession of the said land from respondent No. 1. The said suit came to be dismissed by order dated 20-12-1973. In the meanwhile, when the suit was pending certificate of ownership under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act for short) came to be issued in favour of Ukha Hiralal on 11-6-1971. R. C. S. No. 96/71 was dismissed solely on the ground that the possession of respondent No. 1 was - protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff therefore, filed Civil Appeal No. 13/74 which was dismissed on 23-2-1977 and the order passed by the trial Court was confirmed.
(2.)UKHA Hiralal Mali died on 5-8-1980 and the present petitioners who are the heirs of late Ukha Hiralal Mali filed Special Civil Suit No. 67/82 before the Civil Judge (S. D.) Dhule claiming the reliefs of possession of the suit land and the said suit was again dismissed by order dated 14-3-84 on the same ground namely the possession of - respondent No. 1 was protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and that the same relief prayed in earlier R. C. S. No. 96/71 was already rejected and the order was confirmed in appeal. While Special Civil Suit No. 67/82 was pending, the petitioners approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner and filed Tenancy Application No. 16/83 under section 84 of the Tenancy Act for summary eviction of the - respondent No. 1 and restoration of the subject land to them. The S. D. O. directed Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Amalner for recording the evidence and the Tahsildar after making necessary enquiry submitted his report. It was contended by the present petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer that the transfer of land to respondent No. 1 was invalid under section 43 of the Tenancy Act and hence, they were entitled for the restoration of land from the respondent No. 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 28-2-84 dismissed the tenancy application on the ground that the transaction between late Ukha Hiralal and the respondent No. 1 was merely an agreement of sale which was not a complete sale based on the sale-deed and hence, the possession of the respondent No. 1 was protected under section 53-A of the T. P. Act. The S. D. O. , for arriving at this conclusion, also relied upon the judgment in R. C. S. No. 96/71 as well as Civil Appeal No. 13/74 and held that the findings recorded by the Civil Court were binding on the Tenancy Court and that the transaction between Ukha Hiralal and the present respondent No. 1 was not invalid. The S. D. O. concluded that provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act did not come in the way of the respondent No. 1 as it was a case of incomplete sale-deed which was merely a contract of sale.
(3.)THE petitioners filed Tenancy Revision Application No. 103/84, under section 76 of the Tenancy Act against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Tenancy Application No. 16/83. By order dated 28-2-1985 the Revision was rejected and the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer were confirmed. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal further held that decision in regular civil suit as well as appeal, as rendered by the Civil Courts regarding the claim of the petitioners for possession of the land had become final and the said operated as res-judicata and hence, the application under section 84 of the Tenancy Act was not tenable. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 28-2-1984 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner and the order dated 28-2-85 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Bombay.