The case of the appellant before the Tenancy Awal Karkun was that the possession of the said land was handed over to the husband of the respondent by him in proceedings initiated under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act and that before the expiry of the statutory period of twelve years she had leased it out to one Damu Kalu Suryavanshi on March 21, 1969 therefore, he was entitled to restoration of possession.
The respondent defended the application on two grounds first, that she, being a widow, is entitled to cultivate the land personally which includes through a tenant as provided in Section 2 6 of the Act and there is numberscope to invoke Section 37 so as to give the appellant right to claim restoration of possession secondly, it was pleaded that he had surrendered the land under Section 15 of the Act in which case the provisions of Section 37 of the Act would number be attracted and the question of restoration of possession did number arise.
It was held by the Tribunal i the surrender pleaded under Section 15 was a valid surrender, therefore, the appellant was number entitled to get back the possession ii as the respondent was a widow she was entitled to the benefit of cultivating the land through a tenant as provided in Section 2 6 of the Act and her right to be in possession of the land was number lost.
He also found that in view of subsequent leasing out of the land by the respondent before twelve years from the date of taking possession of the land, the appellant became entitled to resume the land.
The Tenancy Awal Karkun found that the possession of the land was handed over to the husband of the respondent in proceedings initiated by him under Section 31 of the Act as per the order of the Mamlatdar dated May 6, 1957.
250, measuring acres 13 guntas 5 situated at Belpimpaltaon Taluq Newasa, Distt.
2001 3 SCR 95 The following Order of the Court wad delivered The appellant is the dissatisfied tenant who parted with the possession of agricultural land bearing Survey No.
By the order, impugned in this appeal, the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant which led to filing of this appeal.
He is in appeal before us, by special leave, against the judgment and order dated June 23, 1994 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
Appeal against the said order of the Tenancy Awal Karkun before the Sub Divisional Officer having been unsuccessful, the respondent filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
3099 of 1989 which was initially filed before the Bombay Bench as Writ Petition No.
That order of the Tribunal was assailed by the appellant in the writ proceedings, referred to above, in the High Court.
3742 of 1981 but was later transferred to the Auragabad Bench and renumbered.
The Tribunal thus allowed the appeal of the respondent on January 31,1981.
The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal may be numbered in brief The respondent is the widow of late Bapu Lohar who was the landlord of the said land.
Ahmednagar.
