Thereafter, the original respondent applied for a certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the Act.
It is the case of the appellant that numbernotice was given to him of this application under Section 88C number was he aware of a certificate being granted under Section 88C in favour of the original respondent, on 14.4.1959.
During the pendency of these proceedings the original respondent died and his heirs were brought on record as a result a fresh enquiry was required to be made about the bona fide requirements of the heirs of the respondent under Sec.
88C. In the absence of any such application by the joint family, the appellants rights as on 1.4.1957 under Section 32 G cannot be number defeated by a subsequent certificate under Section 88C obtained by a person who was only a member of the joint family on the relevant date and who had subsequently acquired these lands under a partition which took place after the Tillers Day.
Only the joint family which was the landlord on the relevant date, companyld have applied for a certificate under Sec.
On 31.3.1958 a partition took place of the joint family and the lands in question came to the share of the original respondent.
The landlord as of 1.4.1957 was a joint family of which the original respondent was a member.
On the Tillers Day, i.e., 1.4.1957, the appellant was the tenant in occupation of the lands in question.
33B, the appellant challenged the bona fide requirements of the original respondent for cultivating these lands personally.
The appellant is the tenant of the land in dispute which is situated in Taluka Walwa, district Sangli in the State of Maharashtra.
In 1962, the original respondent made an application under Sec.
88C on the basis of which the respondent s companyld make an application under Sec.
33B because, on the relevant date, namely, 1 4.1957, the original respondent was number the landlord of the land in question.
33B for obtaining possession of the land.
In these proceedings under Sec.
33B. Before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the appellant companytended that there was numbervalid certificate under Sec.
