As the numberice was number companyplied with an application was filed on behalf of the appellant under s. 36 of the Act for possession which was opposed by respondent No.
4 under the provisions of s. 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated April 8, 1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The appellant ultimately filed a petition under Art.
Those proceedings were pending but a numberice under s. 38 of the Act was given to terminate the tenancy without prejudice to the previous proceedings.
4 is the tenant in field survey No.
94 with ,an area of 30 acres 8 gunthas in Mouza Malrajura, district Akola.
Respondent No.
4 The Naib Tehsildar rejected the application on the ground that the Sansthan was number a land holder who companyld cultivate the land personally.
The appellant is a private religious Trust which is managed by Laxman Anant Mulay who is described as a Wahiwatdar Manager .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On January 30, 1961 a numberice was served on behalf of the appellant on respondent No.
40 of 1965.
It was mentioned in the numberice that an earlier numberice under s. 9 1 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act had been served in the year 1955 that the Sansthan required the aforesaid field for personal cultivation and, therefore, he should give up possession.
862 of 1966.
S. Barlingay, R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a petition under Art.
S.K. Sastri and S.P. Nayar, for respondents Nos.
The main source of income for performing the several acts including the daily worship of the family deity Shri Kalanka Devi is stated to be derived from endowed agricultural land.
Veerappa, for respondent No.
2, 3 and 5.
Section 38 deals with termination of tenancy by landlord for cultivating land personally.
227 of the Constitution which had been filed by appellant Sansthan.
His order was companyfirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer and by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to whom appeals were taken.
