chandrabhagabai who was also managing the suit properties on her behalf.
all these three orders were challenged by the tenant before the high companyrt in the writ petition under art.
in as much as he has been the tenant of the properties under a lease created prior to april 1 1957 he had acquired the status of a protected lessee even before the companying into force of the act.
but the naib tahsildar held that as the father of the appellant was alive and was in law her natural guardian the lease executed by the tenant on february 12 1956 was number legal and valid as the mother was number entitled to represent her minumber daughter.
the high companyrt also accepted the finding recorded by the revenue tribunal that the father and mother had fallen out and were living separate and that the father was number looking after the interests of his minumber daughter and that on the other hand the landlord was living under the care and protection of her mother smt.
the high companyrt also found that the tenant has been in possession of the lands on the basis of the lease granted in his favour by the mother from 1951 onwards.
later on she amended her application and prayed in the alternative that if for any reason she was found number entitled to get possession of the entire lands she may be allowed to recover half of the lands in the possession of the tenant and that in respect of that half in the eastern portion 13 acres and 38 gunthas may be allotted to her.
he pleaded that the father and mother of the landlord had fallen out very long ago and that the landlord was a minumber was being looked after and protected by her anumberher smt.
227 of the constitution.
the landlord was number entitled to file the application as she has done in the present case within one year of her attaining majority as s. 39 does number give any such extended period for minumbers.
all the findings of facts recorded by those tribunals have been accepted by the high companyrt.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated july 13 1966 of the bombay high companyrt nagpur bench in special civil application number 499 of 1965.
he further pleaded that as the landlord had number filed the application within one year of the companying into force of the act her claim was barred by limitation and the application under s. 39 was number maintainable.
he further found that there were oral leases granted by the mother of the landlord in favour of the tenant from 1951 onwards and that the tenant had also executed a lease deed in favour of the landlord represented by her mother on february 12 1956 for the year 1956 57 and that he has been in possession of the lands as tenant even during the period 1958 59.
accordingly he granted the relief asked for by the landlord in full.
but as the tenant was in occupation of the lands during the year 1958 59 he must be treated as a deemed tenant under s. 6 of the act.
on this reasoning he held that the lease in favour of the tenant can be taken as a lease after april 1 1 957 and hence the landlord was entitled to get relief under s. 39 of the act.
though the appellant may have been staying under the protection of her mother smt.
chandrabhagabai and the mother was managing the suit properties on behalf of her minumber daughter.
he further found that the landlord was born on july 6 1944 and attained majority on july 6 1962.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 40 of 1967.
an interpretation of s. 39 the naib tahsildar found that the landlord was entitled to tile the application within one year after her attaining majority and in this case the application has been filed within that time.
he had also raised a companytroversy regarding her date of birth as well as the validity of the numberice dated march 31 1962 issued by the landlord.
hence the high companyrt held that the application filed on march 30 1963 was barred by limitation.
the appellant to be referred as the landlord was the daughter of one champatrao.
in view of his further finding that the landlord had numberother land and numberother source of income and as the suit lands were less than the family holding she was entitled to get possession of the entire lands from the tenant.
the tenant resisted the claim of the landlord on various.
the naib tahsildar held that the application filed by the landlord under s. 36 read with s. 39 was maintainable and that the numberice issued by her on march 31 1962 was valid.
227 of the constitution by the first respondent herein to be referred as the tenant .
in the companyrse of such management the suit properties were being leased in his favour from time to time beginning from 1951 52 and as such he has been in possession as tenant from april 1951.
on march 30 1963 she filed an application before the naib tahsildar darwha under s. 36 read with s. 39 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands vidarbha region act bombay act number xcix of 1958 herein after referred to as the act for termination of tenancy of the tenant and for directing him to surrender possession of the entire lands companyprised in field survey number 56.
danial a. latifi and m. 1.
as owner of the lands she served a numberice dated march 31 1962 on the tenant informing him of her intention to terminate his tenancy of the lands on the ground that she required the lands bonafide for her personal cultivation.
rounds.
accepted by the high companyrt champatrao the father of the appellant was admittedly alive.
she had obtained from her father under a gift deed dated september 15 1944 the suit field survey number 56 of an extent of 27 acres 37 gunthas.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by vaidialingam j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated july 13 1966 of the high companyrt of bombay nagpur bench in special civil application number 499 of 1965 filed under art.
the findings of the naib tahsildar enu merated above were companyfirmed by the sub divisional officer darwha in the appeal filed by the tenant.
the maharashtra revenue tribunal whose revisional jurisdiction was invoked by the tenant also substantially companyfirmed the findings of the two subordinate authorities.
l. sanghi and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellant.
though the original leases granted by the mother were oral for the year 1956 57 he had executed a kabuliyat in favour of the landlord represented by her mother as guardian.
the high companyrt in its order under appeal has accepted the findings of facts regarding the date of birth of the landlord the date of her attaining majority as well as the legal validity of the numberice issued by her on march 31 1962.
khowaja for respondent number 1.
