the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. the facts relevant to this appeal are short and numberlonger in dispute.
but before the collector passed his said order the respondent executed the mamlatdars order and obtained possession.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated july 3 8 1964 of the gujarat high companyrt in special civil application number 330 of 1962.
the mamlatdar passed an order directing the petitioner the tenant to hand over possession.
the tenant was claiming possession number under the provisions of the act but on his own title albeit as a tenant against a person who had numbertide to ownership or possession in the land and therefore s. 29 1 did number apply to such a case.
number 207 of 1956 decd.
the surrender though voluntary thus was number in accordance with s. 15 and therefore was number valid and binding on the appellant.
an application for companydonation of delay was also rejected.
the high companyrt held that there was a clear distinction between an application under s. 29 1 .
t. desai m. n. shroff for i. n. shroff for respondent number 1.
in the high companyrt of bombay on june 19 1956.
companysequently s. 29 1 was number anumberher provision providing for eviction which opponents 1 and 2 companyld avail of.
974/2 and 975/4 situate in the village delol in districts panchmahals and the appellant at the material time was the tenant thereof on may 15 1956 the appellant voluntarily handed over possession of the said lands to respondent 1.
and one under s. 84 for under s. 29 1 whereas the tenant would be claiming the right to possession under the provisions of the act under s. 84 he would be claiming the right to possession number under any spl.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 104 of 1966.
on january 16 1961 the appellant applied to the deputy companylector under s. 84 of the act for summary eviction of respondent 1.
there are two unreported decisions one by the high companyrt of gujarat and the other by the high companyrt of bombay to which also our attention was drawn.
the petitioner appealed to the companylector under s. 74 of the act who set aside the mamlatdars order.
by shah and vyas jj.
he applied under s. 29 2 to the mamlatdar.
c. bhandare anjali k. verma j. b. dadachanji and o. c. mathur for the appellant.
it is number in dispute that respondent i thereafter personally cultivated the said lands.
respondent 1 is the owner of survey number.
the petitioner thereupon filed a petition under art.
the petitioner then obtained possession in pursuance of the companylectors said order but the respondent forcibly dispossessed him land thereupon on january 10 1952 the petitioner companyplained to the mamlatdar.
in krishna mahar v hussan miya 1 the respondent was the owner of the land in question.
it is however an admitted fact that the sad surrender was number in writing and the procedure of inquiry and verification required by s. 15 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act 57 of 1948 hereinafter called the act was number gone through.
1 thereupon filed a writ petition under art.
what the tenant in such a case was seeking to do was number to enforce his right as a tenant under the provisions of the act but he was enforcing his right against third parties namely the petitioners in that case who were in wrongful occupation.
