The fourth respondent raised a legal companytention that, inasmuch as the lands, in question, belonged to the Trust, the appellant Managing Trustee companyld number be companysidered to be the landlord.
The order of the third respondent was challenged, by the tenant, in appeal, before the Special Deputy Collector, Tenancy Appeals, Akola the second respondent .
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 27, 1964 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No.
In this view the second respondent held that the appellant was number a person capable of cultivating land personally and, as such, was number entitled to ask for surrender of the lands, from the tenant.
He further companytended that the Trust itself companyld number cultivate personally the lands and, therefore, the application, filed by the appellant, was number maintainable.
The High Court summarily rejected the writ petition, filed by the appellant, against this order.
The second respondent accepted the appellants plea that he was the Managing Trustee of the Trust, in question, but took the view that a claim, on behalf of a Trust, for personal cultivation, under the Act, companyld number be made, as a Trust was incapable of cultivating lands personally.
According to the appellant, the necessary numberices, terminating the tenancy of the fourth respondent, had been given, under the Act, and that he was entitled to get possession of the lands, in question.
The appellant went up, in revision, against this order, before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur the first respondent .
The appellant, the Managing Trustee of the said Trust, filed an application, under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act, 1958 Bombay Act XCIX of 1958 here inafter called the Act , before the Naib Tehsildar, Balapur the third respondent, herein , to direct the fourth respondent, the tenant, to surrender four acres of land, on the ground that the lands were required for being cultivated personally.
That Tribunal took the view that the case was governed by the decision of the Bombay High Court, in Buvasaheb v. Yesu Krishna , and dismissed the revision.
In this view, the third respondent further held that the Managing Trustee was a landlord, under the Act, entitled to get possession of the lands.
Finally, the third respondent ordered the tenant to surrender possession of the land, as required by the appellant.
The latter, by order dated October 30, 1963, reversed the decision of the Naib Tehisildar.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
641 of 1966.
The second respondent followed, in this regard, the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in Shri Kalanka Devi Sansthan, Patur v. Pandu Maroti 1 , which had held that a Deity or Sansthan, which is a juristic person, companyld hold property, but companyld number act, except through a Wahiwatdar or Manager, and, as such, was incapable of cultivating lands personally.
The third, respondent overruled these objections, on the ground that the Managing Trustee was a person in whom the properties of theTrustee vested in law and, therefore, it was open to him to make a claim for possession of the lands from a tenant, on the ground that they were required for personal cultivation.
The fourth respondent raised various objections, on merits but all those objections were over ruled, by the third respondent.
32 of 1964.
322 of 1964.
V. S. Mani, for the appellant.
The respondent did number appear.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the appellant attacks the judgment and order, dated July 27, 1964, of the Nagpur Bench, of the Bombay High Court, dismissing Special Civil Application No.
