The Respondent then filed a suit for possession of the aforesaid lands in which the Appellant took a defence that he was a tenant of these lands and protected under the relevant legislation against eviction.
The Appellant then filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against this decision.
The Respondents mother also companystructed another dharamshala on a separate piece of land.
This companyclusion of the Tribunal was challenged by the Respondent herein before the Bombay High Court.
The issue whether the Appellant was the tenant of the said lands was framed and referred to the Tahsildar for decision.
The aforesaid issue was decided in the first instance by the Naib Tahsildar.
The Naib Tahsildar passed an order on November 30, 1965 holding that the Appellant was the tenant in respect of the said lands because he was lawfully cultivating the said lands which belonged to the Respondent.
On February 12, 1963, the Appellant was served with a numberice calling upon him to hand over the belongings of the temple as well as the immovable property to the Respondent.
Under an agreement with the landlord, the aforesaid three agricultural lands were cultivated by Umaji but instead of being paid in cash for the services rendered by him to the landlord in the form of looking after the management of the property and worshipping in the temple, Umaji was allowed to cultivate the said fields and to take the crops.
Before him the Appellant companytended that he was a deemed tenant as understood under Section 6 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Vidarbha Tenancy Act .
The Tribunal took numberice.
Against this order the Respondent herein filed an appeal.
Of the admission of the Respondent that the Appellant herein was cultivating the said lands lawfully and on this basis came to the companyclusion that the Appellant herein was the tenant of the said lands.
The Appellant is the son of Umaji and records show that, after the death of Umaji, he was given the same work as Umaji on the same terms and companyditions.
C. Agarwala, Vijay Pandita and Atul Sharma for the Appellant.
The Respondent before us, who was the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, is the owner of three agricultural lands described in the judgment appealed against, situated at Talkhed, Taluk Malkapur, District Buldana in the Vidarbha area of Maharashtra.
668 N of 1971, From the Judgment and order dated 14.1.1970 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No.
The facts on record show that Umaji, the father of the Appellant, was appointed a Pujari by the then landlord to worship the idols in the aforesaid temple and to look after the management of the dharamshalas on behalf of the landlord.
The Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the Sub Divisional officer and restored the order of the Naib Tahsildar.
The Sub Divisional officer, who decided the appeal, set aside the order of Naib Tahsildar and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry on several issues including the issue as to how the Appellant herein came to be in possession of the said lands.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was companytended by the Appellant that he was in lawful cultivation of the said agricultural lands and should be declared to be a tenant.
The Respondent, on the other hand, reiterated his claim that the Appellant was number a tenant.
The learned Judge came to the companyclusion that, on these facts, the lawful cultivation of the fields by the Appellant was referable to a particular companytract which alone must govern the relationship between the parties.
Originally, these fields belonged to one Hiralal who died in 1916.
Hiralal started the companystruction of a dharamshala and a temple in 1912 in the said lands which companystruction was companypleted by the Respondents mother during the minority of the Respondent.
The facts necessary for the disposal of the Appeal can be shortly stated.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.
789 of 1969.
