M.S.RATNAPARKHI, J. - (1.) The petitioner Sakharam Magnaji Mitkar challenges the order passed by the District Judge, Beed, in Rent Appeal No. 7 of 1977, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on 10-5-1977 evicting the tenants from the suit property and directing to hand over vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this litigation maybe briefly stated as follows:- Survey No. 227 admeasuring 2 acres 6 gunthas and Survey No. 37 admeasuring 1 acre and 1 gunthas previously belonged to Dattu Ramji and his brother Deorao. Deorao had one-fourth share in Survey No. 227, whereas, the remaining land in Survey Nos. 227 and 37 belonged to Dattu Ramji. The plaintiffs purchased the share of Deorao and they became the exclusive owners of the property. Admittedly, this land was leased out to defendant No. 1 for a period of 51 years under two registered lease-deeds one dated 27th Teer 1352 Fasli and 17 Farwardi 1352 Fasli on the annual rent. It is not now disputed that defendant No. 1 became the exclusive lessee of this property. There was none cattle-shed standing in this land. But this cattle-shed was not the subject matter of lease. It was only the land which was leased out. The lease was for 51 years and it was for the purposes of constructing and running a Ginning and Pressing Factory and for no other purpose. It was also agreed between the parties that the lease was to remove the building and restore the land to the lessor in cultivable condition. The terms of the lease are not disputed by the contesting parties at this stage. It is also not disputed that the lease was only in respect of the land and not in respect of the building standing thereon.
(3.) It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 1 subsequently transferred the lease hold rights in favour of defendant No. 2 without their consent. Defendant No. 2 transferred some interests in the lease-hold property in favour of defendant No. 4 Suresh. It is the case of plaintiffs that the lessee defendant No. 1 was always in arrears of rent and therefore, they had to file two suits. Regular Civil Suit No. 103/63 and Small Causes Suit No. 6/1966, for the recovery of rent for the period from 1961 to 1965, respectively. Both the suits were decreed. The present controversy does not relate to the rent prior to 1966.;