KALIDAS Vs. WAMANRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landholder owning field Survey No. 56/2, area 5 acres 24 gunthas, in village Taroda in Pusad Tahsil of Yeotmal District. The respondent was originally a tenant cultivating this land. The respondent surrendered his tenancy right on 30-9-1961 by a surrender deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The surrender was verified by the Naib Tahsildar, Pusad on 11-10-1961. By his order the Naib Tahsildar, Pusad, after having recorded the statement of the Respondent in the absence of the landlord found that the respondent had executed the surrender deed willingly and voluntarily. The Naib Tahsildar, Pusad, also came to the conclusion that the total acreage of land including the surrendered land with the petitioner was less than three family holdings and, therefore, he was entitled to resume the land in question under Section 21 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The Naib Tahsildar, therefore, endorsed in his order:

(2.) The Revenue Tribunal concurred with the finding of the Sub Divisional Officer on the point of validity of the surrender and also observed:

(3.) On the first point, it is clearly conceded by both the sides before me that the finding of the Revenue Tribunal is not correct. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 120 (c) of the Tenancy Act shows that an application for summary eviction of the person in possession of any particular land could be filed under that provision if it were shown that the person in possession was (1) unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of the said land, (2) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the said provisions of the Tenancy Act and (3) the provisions of the Tenancy Act do not provide for the eviction of such person. All these conditions were satisfied in this case. It was not further necessary, as wrongly observed by the Revenue Tribunal, that tike taking of possession by the unauthorised person should have something to do with the tenancy rights over the land. Therefore, it is clear, this is a proper case in which the petitioner could nave applied for eviction of the respondent under Section 120 (c) of the Tenancy Act