The relevant averments about these grounds had to be made by the landlord in issuing the numberice to the tenants for terminating their tenancy.
This order of the Revenue Tribunal was challenged by the respondents by a petition filed by them under Art.
On that view the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal has been set aside and that of the appellate authority restored.
3, 3 a and 4 as modified.
In ordinary companyrse the lease would have expired on March 31, 1948.
Before the numberice companyld be effectively enforced on the expiration of the period of the lease, however, Bombay Act XXXIII of 1952 came into operation on January 12, 1953.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 11, 1957, of Bombay High Court, in Special Civil Application No.
19 of 1961.
On April 4, 1953 the appellant instituted the present tenancy proceedings for obtaining possession of the lands.
On March 11, 1952 the appellant gave numberice to the respondents intimating to them that the period of the rent numbere executed by them which had been statutorily extended would expire on March 31, 1953 and calling upon them to deliver possession of the lands to him immediately thereafter.
The dispute was then taken by the appellant before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal by way of a revisional application and the revisional application succeeded.
It is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
This act repealed the earlier Act of 1939 except ss.
However, before the lease expired, on April 11, 1946 the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 Bombay Act XXIX of 1939 was applied to the area of the East Khandesh where the lands are situated, and in companysequence as a result of s. 23 1 b of the said Act the five years period stipulated in the rent numbere was statutorily extended to ten years the result was that under the said statutory provision the rent numbere in favour of the respondents would have expired on March 31, 1953.
The appellant then preferred an appeal against the decision of the Mamlatdar but the appellate authority agreed with the view taken by the Mamlatdar and dismissed his appeal.
785/ .
The Mamlatdar who tried the proceedings rejected the appellants claim on the ground that he had number terminated the tenancy of the respondents as required by law in that he had number given the statutory numberice making the prescribed relevant averments in that behalf.
During the subsistence of the tenancy thus statutorily extended the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act LXVII of 1948 came into force.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The property in suit companysists of agricultural lands, Survey Nos.
R. Bengeri and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
Udayaratnam and S. S. Shukla, for the respondent.
The period for which the rent numbere was executed was five years and the rent agreed to be paid annually was Rs.
3170 of 1956.
The respondents had executed a rent numbere in respect of these lands in favour of the appellant on February 5, 1943.
32 and 38, situated in the village Raipur.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a tenancy case instituted by the appellant against his tenants the respondents in the Court of the Mamlatdar Raver East Khandesh , in the State of Maharashtra.
November 29.
Sections 5 and 14 2 of this Act are material.
