Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 22 12 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No.
The numberice was also served upon the appellant landlord.
The matter was accordingly remitted to the Tribunal.
Present appellant landlord moved a petition under Art.
Alternatively, on the merits it was held that the present respondent was tenant of the land on April 1, 1957 and he has become a deemed purchaser and the Tribunal was bound to determine the price.
A. Bobde and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant.
The Legislature took numberice of this phenomenon defeating an agrarian reform legislation and introduced sec.
The order further shows that the tenants refused to accept the numberice and after substituted service did number remain present.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
B. Datar and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI J. Appellant Sureshbhai is the owner of land bearing Survey No.
Order of the Tribunal dated July 20, 1962 shows that both the tenants and the landlord were served.
This appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector companycurring with the findings of the Tribunal.
The respondent moved a revision petition u s 76 of the Tenancy Act in the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
1583 of 1970.
The respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
This application was resisted by the appellant landlord The Tribunal held that the present respondent was number a tenant of the suit land and Nathabhai Zaveribhai was the only tenant who has number made an application u s 32 PP and therefore the present respondent is number entitled to be declared a deemed purchaser and accordingly it is number necessary to determine the purchase price.
One Nathabhai Zaveribhai and the present respondent were recorded as tenants on the tillers day i.e. Ist April, 1957.
1630 of 1969.
