Decided on December 01,1966

ISA ADMAL Respondents


J.B.MEHTA, N.M.MIABHOY - (1.)This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal passed on 5th June 1962.
(2.)The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under :-
Respondents Nos. 1 2 and 3 are the landlords (hereinafter referred to as the landlords) of certain pieces of lands in Dhandhuka Taluka. The landlords had in all three tenants Amarshi Daud Isa and the petitioner Suleman Jijibhai. The duration of tenancy of the said tenant Amarshi was the shortest in point of time as he was cultivating the land of the landlords since 12 years; while Daud Isa and the petitioner were cultivating the lands of the landlords since 15 years and 25 years respectively. The landlords did not terminate the tenancy of the said tenant Amarshi and under sec. 31(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act a notice had been given and an application for possession was made as required under the said section in respect of only the two tenants Daud Isa and the petitioner. The Tenancy Aval Karkun Dhandhuka by the order dated 25th August 1957 dismissed these applications on the ground that Amarshis tenancy was of the shortest duration and the same having not been terminated the landlords were not competent to terminate any of the other two tenancies in view of sub-clause (e) of sec. 31A. He had also held that the estimated income from the lands of which the landlords were entitled to take possession was not the principal Source of income for their maintenance and so condition (c) of 31A was also not fulfilled. In appeal the Assistant Collector Dholka Prant by the order dated 17th January 1958 remanded the matter for retrial on the ground that the Tenancy Aval- Karkun should not have decided both these cases by a common judgment. After remand the Tenancy Aval-Karkun by the order dated 12th September 1958 Ex. 1 dismissed the landlords application as against the petitioner on a preliminary ground that condition (c) regarding the principal source of income was not satisfied. In appeal the said Deputy Collector Ahmedabad by the order dated 25th February 1959 agreed to the said finding of fact and dismissed the appeal also on another ground that the widow and the miners were not entitled to terminate tale tenancy under sec. 31. and revision the Tribunal had by the order dated 10th December 1959 remanded the matter for a fresh decision as in its view the said Deputy Collator had erred in holding that the tenancy could not be terminated under sec. 31 and as he had not considered the evidence regarded before the Assistant Collectors order of the first remand. AFter this remand by the Tribunal the District Deputy Collector by the order dated 30th September 1961 Ex. 2 held that as Amarshis tenancy which was shortest in point of time had not been terminated the landlords were not competent to terminate the petitioners tenancy. He also held that condition (c) as regards the principal source of income was not fulfilled. On these two grounds the landlords application was dismissed. The landlords filed a revision application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the said order on the ground that the District Deputy Collector had grossly erred in his finding as regards the principal source of income. The Tribunal held that condition (c) of sec. 31A was fulfilled. The Tribunal had held that condition (e) of sec. 31A as regards the termination of the shortest tenancy did not apply to the facts of the present case as the said clause in the Tribunals view applied to cases where the landlord could not terminate all the tenancies created by him in favour of different tenants but could terminate only some of them by reason of the ceiling limit. The Tribunal therefore allowed both the revision applications and awarded possession to the landlords as mentioned therein. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order Ex. 3 of the Tribunal in the present petition. No affidavit in reply has been filed by respondents Nos. 1 2 and 3.

(3.)Mr. Gandhi made the following submissions at the time of hearing :-
(1) That the interpretation of clause (e) of sec. 31A by the Tribunal was patently erroneous;

(2) That the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with a pure finding of fact on the question of principal source of income;

(3) That the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in so far as it had invoked power under the amended sec. 76 which could have no retrospective operation to a pending proceeding;

(4) That the finding of the Tribunal that the notice of termination was valid was patently erroneous;

(5) That the finding on the question of bona fide requirement being based on wholly irrelevant considerations was perverse; and

(6) The order was patently erroneous for want of precision and certitude.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.