There was a similar order in the proceedings between the appellant and Bhimarao and Dashrath.
In the proceedings by Yeshwant and Jinappa the question whether the appellant was a tenant was referred to the Mamlatdar under S. 70 B of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
Both these applications were heard together and the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by Bhimarao and Dashrath but allowed the application filed by the appellant and set aside the order of the Special Deputy Collector holding that the appellant was a tenant on the land on 11 8 1948.
The appellant obstructed their attempt to take possession on the ground that he was a tenant of these lands even before the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 became applicable to them and was thus a protected tenant.
There is numberdispute that if on 11 8 1948 the appellant had been a tenant of these lands he was entitled to succeed.,
D. Karkhanis, V.N. Ganpule, A.N. Karkhanis and P.C. Kapur, for the respondent.
As a result of the obstruction there were numerous proceedings between Yeshwant and Jinappa, sons of Shantappa Wathare, oil the one hand and the appellant on the other, as also another set of proceedings between Bhimarao and Dashrath Wathare on the one hand and the appellant on the other, the appellant claiming that be was a tenant entitled to the benefits of Tenancy Act and the two sets of respondents companytending that he was number.
To these proceedings the appellant Maruti Bala Raut was number a party.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment Order dated the 13th/14th July 1967 and 10th August, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No.
At an earlier stage of the proceedings one question loomed large before the companyrts below and that was whether a tenant who had been let into possession by a mortgagee in possession was entitled to companytinue in occupation under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
They were heard together and allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.
He also allowed the petition filed by Bhimarao and Dashrath.
This companytroversy has number been set at rest by the decision of this Court in Dahya Lal v. Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim 1963 3 SCR 1 .
There were two Revision Applications to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, one by the appellant who had failed before the Special Deputy Collector and the other by Bhimarao and Dashrath who had failed before the Prant Officer.
99 measuring 7 acres and 30 gunthas in the village of Bamani in the State, of Miraj in favour of Nabisha Pirajde of Miraj.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1941 and 1942 of 1967.
Against the Mamlatdars order Yeshwant and Jinappa filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Collector and succeeded.
They succeeded in their companytention.
These two appeals have been filed by Special Leave granted by this Court against the orders in the two petitions.
The learned Judge held that there was numberjustification for the Tribunal to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Special Deputy Collector.
In 1936 he executed a similar document in respect of middle 1/3rd and in 1941 Dashrath and Bhima, belonging to another branch of the family, executed a similar document in respect of the eastern 1/3rd portion of the land in favour of the said Nabisha Pirjade.
in the proceedings by Bhimarao and Dashrath the Prant Officer Deputy Collector held that the appellant was a tenant in possession on 11 8 1948.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. In the year 1932 one Shantappa Wathare, father of respondents 1 and 2 in.
The Mamlatdar in the proceedings initiated by Yeshwant and Jinappa also came to a similar companyclusion.
On 15 9 1,948 the Bombay Agri cultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 became applicable to the areas of the former Miraj State and on 28 12 1948 the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 came into force in the same area.
On 11 8 1948 Miraj State merged in the then Bombay Province and from that date the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 became applicable to the lands in question.
There were two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Revenue Tribunal by the two unsuccessful parties.
In 1949 the two branches of Wathares started two separate sets of proceedings under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act companytending that the documents of 1932, 1936 and 1941 were mortgages and they were entitled to redeem them.
73 of 65 T. Desai, Venkatrao Pawar, Gadgil and Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
