The suit was filed for injunction against the appellant.
The appellant issued numberice on January 22, 1969 claiming oral tenancy.
Thereon, the appellant carried the matter in appeal to the Special Deputy Collector, Tenancy Appeals, Sholapur, who held that oral tenancy was established.
In other words, the appellant had raised his claim for the first time, after the landlord had filed the suit.
The admitted facts are that the landlord was a minor and was prosecuting his studies and his maternal uncle was looking after the properties.
to the Tehsildar who in his proceedings held that in respect of Survey No.3 to the extent of 16 acres 26 Gunthas situated in Mirajgi village belongs to the respondent and the appellant had number proved oral tenancy.
The suit property was subject of hypothecation and the mortgagee had inducted one Somanna who remained in possession and cultivated the land till 1964 65.
Thereafter, the maternal uncle of the respondent claimed to have been in possession and cultivated the land.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court at Bombay in Special Civil Application No.277 of 1972 dated 8th September, 1977.
He claimed that the landlord had agreed for an oral lease for the year 1968 69.
Even otherwise, the appellant is a deemed tenant under s.4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 for short, Tenancy Act .
The admitted position is that the respondent filed the suit for injunction on January 20, 1969 and ad interim injunction was issued on January 21, 1969.
The respondent landlord filed Civil Suit No.10/68 in the Court of Civil Judge, J.D. at Akkalkot.
The appellant companyld have got lawful possession over the lands, if there would have been an agreement with the landlord, and pursuant thereto the landlord inducted the tenant in possession for beneficial enjoyment of the demised land on payment of premium or rent etc.,
On revision, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, companyfirmed the findings.
A writ Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Since the appellant raised plea of oral tenancy for the year 1968 69, the Civil Court referred the issue Does the defendant prove tenancy over the suit land thereon?
