Dua, J. - (1.) This is a landlord's appeal by special leave and is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court, disallowing the appellant's application under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated March 26, 1965 partly allowing the revision of Jaidrath and Vittal, tenants (respondents in this Court) presented in the Tribunal under Ss. 28 (2) and 32 (2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 21, of 1950 (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) Jaidrath and Vittal were tenants under the appellant (who was inmadar) and according to the appellant's allegations the tenants were in arrears of rent for three consecutive years, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. On June, 18, 1960 the appellant terminated the respondent's tenancy by giving the necessary statutory notice. On August, 4, 1960 an application was presented by the appellant to the Tehsildar, Millam, under Ss. 28 (2) and 32 (2) of the Act praying for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,200 and for possession of the land on the ground that their tenancy had been lawfully terminated. This application was heard by the Naib Tahsildar who allowed it and ordered the tenants to pay the rent amounting to Rs. 925.77 np. to the landlord (Inamdar) and also held that the tenancy had been terminated. As a result of this conclusion the possession of the land was directed to be restored to the landlord under S. 32 (2), This order was made on November 28, 1963. An appeal preferred to the Deputy Collector by Jaidrath and Vittal was dismissed on August 31, 1964. A revision under S. 91 of the Act was taken by the tenants to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad which was allowed in part. The Tribunal affirmed the concurrent findings of the Naib Tahsildar and Deputy Collector that the tenants were in arrears of rent. In regard to the claim for possession the Tribunal held that under S. 3 (1) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, VIII of 1955 (hereinafter called the Abolition Act), all rights and interests with respect to the inam lands vesting in the Inamdar had ceased, and had vested absolutely in the State with effect from July 20, 1955. On this reasoning the landlord was held disentitled to claim possession of the inam land under S. 32 (2) of the Act. The Tribunal further held on the evidence led by the tenants that the occupancy rights had been conferred on, and given to, the tenant under the provisions of the Abolition Act. The Tribunal referring to the facts of the case observed in its order: ".....on 7-10-1961 the tenants Jaidrath submitted an application before the Tehsildar in which he alleged that the lands in dispute were Inam lands and thus Inam lands vested in the State from the date of enforcement of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 and the petitioner was declared as the occupant of the said lands from 27th July, 1955. In view of this fact the said tenant pleaded that the landholder was not entitled to recover possession of the said lands from the tenants. In support of his allegation he filed a notice he received from the Tehsil Office for depositing the price of occupancy rights. In response to the notice it seems that he deposited Rs. 75/- in Treasury Officer on 30-6-1961. The original challan has also been filed by Jaidrath......." Dealing with this part of the case, the Tribunal added a little lower down: "As regard the second relief sought by the landholder I wish to point out that both the lower Courts failed to give correct decision. The tenant in the lower court submitted the notice received from the Tehsil Officer and the challan by which the price of occupancy rights was deposited by the tenant in the Government Treasury under the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act. The revision petitioners had raised the plea before the trial Court that the suit lands were inam lands the occupancy rights of which were given to the tenants and hence the landholder was not entitled to recover possession of the said lands. There was great force in this plea. The documents filed by the tenants in the lower court clearly show that S. No. 273 and 259 situated at Massa are inam lands. Jaidratha was given the price of occupancy rights by the notice issued on 3-9-61. Thus we find the lands in dispute were inam lands. Under Section 3 sub-section (1) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act all rights and interests vesting in the Inamdar in respect to the Inam lands ceased and vested absolutely in the State. The date of vesting is 20th July, 1955, hence the landholder has lost his right to recover possession of the lands from the date of the enforcement of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inam Act. It is not correct to say that the landholder cannot be deprived of the rights accrued to him prior to the enforcement of the said Act. Both the lower courts have wrongly held that the subsequent change in the law will not deprive person of the rights which accrued to him before the new law was enforced. So far as the claim of rent is concerned I think that the Inamdar was entitled to recover the amount of rent. But he cannot be given possession of the lands under Section 32 (2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act when it is found that all rights pertaining to inam vested in the Government from 20th July, 1955. Moreover the occupancy rights have also been conferred and given to the tenant under the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act. In view of these facts the respondent was not entitled to recover possession of the inam lands."
(3.) The order of the Deputy Collector confirming that of the Naib Tahsildar directing possession to be given to the land-lord was according set aside.;