BHAIJIBHAI KALIDAS Vs. ICHCHHABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Could the petitioners be said to be members of the owner's family so that they can be held to be deemed tenants under Sec. 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Tenancy Act' for short) is the heart and theme of the petition on hand under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) With a view to appreciating the aforesaid important question, a few material relevant facts may be set out at the outset. The agricultural land admeasuring 6 acres-2 gunthas situated in the sim of Dholka was owned by one Bai Pasiben, widow of Naran Mathur, who is hereinafter referred to as "the disputed land". Owner Pasiben who has now expired was the mother of respondent Nos. 1 and 4. After the death of Pasiben, the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Dholka had started proceedings under Sec. 32-G of the Tenancy Act. It may be mentioned that the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Dholka had started inquiry under Sec. 32G in the year 1961, but since Bai Pasiben was widow, the right of then tenant to purchase the disputed land came to be deferred and postponed by an order dated 30-11-1961.

(3.) Therefore, after the death of Pasiben, proceedings came to be started under Sec. 32-G by the said authority. After the inquiry, it was held that deceased Bhaijibhai Kalidas, the father of the petitioners herein was not a tenant and was not entitled to purchase the disputed land under Sec. 4 of the Tenancy Act as he was related to Pasiben. He held that Bhaijibhai Kalidas was father-in-law of Jiviben, respondent No. 4 herein. He also held that respondent Nos. 1 and 4, daughters of deceased Pasiben were entitled to file a suit under Sec. 70(b) of the Tenancy Act to obtain possession of the land in question from the said Bhaijibhai Kalidas.