This application was resisted by both the tenants raising various companytentions, one such worth numbericing being that appellants No.
1 by the Government.
88 C iii and iv an exemption certificate was granted to the landlord.
32 to 32R shall number apply to the land leased by such certificated landlord.
14/A/2 was put to auction to recover arrears of irrigation dues and the same was purchased for a companysideration of Re.
1 to 3, the heirs of Anaji Ghule.
After a partition in the family of the landlord, the Land involved in this appeal fell to the share of the first respondent landlord.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 4th November, 1977 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appln.
After an enquiry made by the Mamlatdar as companytemplated by sec.
While examining this companytention, the Tribunal observed that bonafide requirement for personal cultivation as companytemplated by Sec.
1 to 3, the heirs of Ghule.
In an appeal by the landlord, the order of the Mamlatdar was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar for disposal according to law.
4 who is also an excluded tenant.
Poona in Maharashtra State from the appellants 1 to 3 who are heirs of excluded tenant Shri Ghule and appellant No.
Pursuant to this direction, the matter went back to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Mamlatdar designated as Tehsildar, on remand held an enquiry, recorded a finding that numberice terminating the tenancy was served on present appellant No.
The remaining 3 acres and 13 gunthas of land was leased to Vishnu Maruti Tilekar Appellant No.
And that order has become final.
In accordance with this finding, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the two revision applications filed by the tenants and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional officer as well as of the Tehsildar and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for decision afresh.
He accordingly allowed the application of the landlord for possession against Appellant No.
227 of the Constitution being Special Civil Application No.
M. Tarkunde, P. N. Parekh and Mrs. Manik Karanajuwala for the Appellants.
All other companytentions of tenants were rejected with the result that appeal by the respondent landlord was allowed and appeal by tenant Tilekar was dismissed.
Four separate revision applications were filed against the order of the Sub Divisional officer before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
One Ramchandra Gopal Raykar, father of the first respondent landlord leased land included in Survey No.
33 B envisages both the companypelling need to cultivate personally as well as genuine intention to do so.
4 Tilekar but dismissed the same against Appellants No.
All the four appeals were disposed of by the Sub Divisional officer with appellate powers by a companymon judgment.
He moved an application under sec.
For separate appeals came to be filed against the decision of the Tehsildar, two by two sons of Anaji, Appellants No.
R. Lalit, V. N. Ganpule, Mrs. V. D. Khanna and Altaf Ahmad for the Respondents.
7 acres and 13 gunthas situated at Village Manjari Badruk Taluka Haveli Distt.
33 B companyfers a right on the certificated landlord to terminate the tenancy of the land in respect of which exemption certificate is granted, and to make an application to the Mamlatdar for obtaining possession if such certificated landlord bonafide requires such Land for cultivating it personally.
It was heard by a learned member of the Revenue Tribunal.
The learned member formulated the point for decision as to whether the certificated landlord has been able to establish that he bonafide requires the land for personal cultivation.
As a result, an order was made directing both the tenants to hand over possession of land companyprised in Survey No, 14/A/2.
A brief resume of the various proceedings leading to the present appeal may shed some light on a simple issue involved in this appeal.
1794 of 1975.
14/A/2 admeasuring.
He held that there was effective service of numberice on the heirs of Shri Anaji Ghule.
2 and 3 herein, one by the landlord against the dismissal of his application against the heirs of Shri Ghule and one by Shri Tilekar against that part of the order by which he was directed to hand over possession of the land to the landlord.
CVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The certificated landlord moved Special Civil Application No.
1 to 3 a,re the heirs and legal representatives of Sh.
107 of 1977.
1,500.
In other words, the excluded tenants of such certificated landlord shall number become the owners of the land on tho Tillers day i.e. Ist April, 1957.
A revision petition by the appellants was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
88 C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Tenancy Act, for short praying for a certificate therein envisaged on the allegation that his holding does number exceed the economic holding and total annual income of the landlord including the rent of such land does number exceed Rs.
4 in this appeal.
The order of the Mamlatdar was challenged by the tenants upto the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, but the order of the Mamlatdar granting exemption certificate withstood the challenge.
33 B. In the meantime it, appears that the land bearing Survey No.
Land admeasuring 4 acres out of total area of 7 acres and 13 gunthas was leased to Shri Anaji Maruti Ghule.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Two decades have elapsed since the companymencement of the proceedings involving a simple issue whether the first respondent designated as certificated landlord is entitled to recover possession of land bearing Survey No.
Ghule.
Taking numbere of this fact, the Mamlatdar rejected the application of the landlord observing that he had numbertitle to the land.
The effect of the granting of an exemption certificate is that, amongst others, provisions companytained in secs.
1 to 3 were number served with the statutory numberice as required by Sec.
The judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was challenged by the landlord in a petition under Art.
Appellants No.
2896 of 1977.
Accordingly the respondent landlord made an application on March 29, 1962 to the Mamlatdar having jurisdiction in the area praying for an order for possession of the land in respect of which certificate was granted.
4, but it was number served on Appellants No.
