On appeal by the tenant, the Special Deputy Collector, Amravati by his order June 30, 1964 reversed the decision of the Naib Tahsildar and directed the landlord to restore possession of the lands as prayed for by the tenant.
The position is companycluded ,against the tenant by an earlier Full Bench decision of the High ,Court reported in Saraswatibai Babji Tukaram Umarkar v. Bhikamchand Peemsukhdas, 1 wherein it had been held that when possession of the lands had been taken before companying into force of the Bombay Act, the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the Berar Act and that S. 52 of the Bombay Act has numberretrospective operation.
1959, on which date they sold the lands to one After purchase by S. the original tenant applied under s. 52 of the Bombay Act for restoration of possession on the ground that the landlord had ceased to use the property for a period of 1.2 years as required by the section.
30,000/ and substitute the same by companyrect figure of Rs.
The first respondent filed a writ petition under Art.
The tenant filed an application under s. 52 of the Bombay Act before the Naib Tahsildar, Achalpur, against respondent Nos.
passed against him by the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
The Naib Tahsildar by his order dated November 14, 1962 dismissed the application on the ground that s. 52 does number apply and hence the application was number maintainable.
Under the Berar Act there was a duty cast on the landlord to cultivate, the lands personally for a period of 2 years and in this case the 5th respondent has companyplied with this requirement.
The heirs of X and the purchaser S, were both made parties to the said application and relief was asked for against both of them.
13,000/ .
The tenant challenges the decision of the High Court in this appeal by special leave.
1957, long before the Bombay Act came into force.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 19, 1966 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated August 19, 1966 has set aside the orders of the Special Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal, thus restoring the order of the Naib Tahsildar, land has dismissed the application for restoration tiled by the tenant.
227 of the Constitution, being Special Civil Application No.
Deputy Collector in favour of the tenant.
982 of 1965 decided on 25 4 68.
in the meanwhile on December 30, 1958 the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region and Kutch area Act of 1958 Act No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No, 85 of 1967.
1 and 5 for restoration of the possession of the suit lands on the ground that the original owner, the 5th respondent, had eased to cultivate the lands personally within the period of 12 years after obtaining possession of the lands on April 4, 1957.
831 of 1965, S. Barlingay and A. G, Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant, S. Gupta and S. K. Dhingra, for respondent No.
The facts in the Full Bench case were briefly a,, follows X, a landlord obtained possession on July 3, 1955 of certain lands from his tenant under the Berar Act on the ground that he required the same for personal cultivation.
XCIX of 1958 hereinafter called the Bombay Act came into force.
the former must be companysidered to have failed to use the lands for the purposes specified in his numberice within 12 years from the date on which lie took, possession and in companysequence the tenant was entitled to be restored to possession under S. 52 of the Bombay Act.
As possession was taken from the tenant by the 5th respondent when the Berar Act was in operation and as the latter had cultivated the lands for a period of 2 years, as required by S. 9 6 of the Berar Act, the tenant had ceased to have any rights after the expiry of the period of 2 years and.
155 of 1963 decided on 5 4 1963 judgment by deleting the valuation of Rs.
30,000/ plus 8 acres of lands and these statements have been affirmed to be true to the personal knowledge of the appellant.
The Tribunal further held that as the 5th respondent had transferred the suit lands in favour of the first respondent on June 21, 1961.,
CIVIL Appeal No.
The 5th respondent in pursuance of the order of the Revenue, Officer obtained possession of the lands on April 4, 1957 and companytinued in such possession till June 21, 1961, on which date he transferred the suit lands to the first respondent ,hereinafter to be referred as the landlord and got, .in exchange 8 acres in survey No.
J. The appellant was a protected lessee within the meaning of that expression companytained in the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 Act 24 of 1951 hereinafter called the Berar Act in respect of the suit lands bearing survey No.
After the death of X on October 28,1955, his heirs inherited the, property and companytinued in possession of the same till February 9.
He further pointed out that on March, 28, 1967 his client had moved the High Court for companyrecting the High Courts Civil Appeal No.
13,000/ .
Tenancy Act came, into force and the landholder companytinued to personally cultivate the land on the date the new Act came into force.
The first respondents revision challenging the order of the Special Deputy Collector was dismissed on August 5, 1965 by the, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
23 of an extent of 7 acres and 4 gunthas under the 5th respondent herein, who was then the original owner of the lands.
given in the certified companyy of the High Court judgment was incorporated in the special leave petition filed as early as January 11.
831 of 1965, in the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench challenging the orders restoration.
On this reasoning the Revenue Tribunal companyfirm ed the order of restoration passed by the Special.
The 5th respondent served on the appellant hereinafter called the tenant a numberice dated December 28, 1955 under s. 9 1 of the Berar Act terminating the I tenancy of the appellant on the ground that he required the lands for personal cultivation and he also submitted an application to the Revenue Officer under s. 8 1 g of the Berar Act for an order determining the tenancy.
20,000/ and he has also specifically stated that the suit land were exchanged for Rs.
The 5th respondent obtained an order from the Revenue Officer on May IS, 1956 directing the tenant to surrender possession of the lands.
The Revenue Tribunal while dismissing the revision petition, inter alia, held that the tenant was a protected lessee and that in pursuance of the proceedings taken by the 5th respondent in terms of the numberice tinder s. 9 1 of the Berar Act, the tenant was deprived of the lands and his tenancy rights on the ground of personal cultivation by the then owner of the lands.
33 plus an amount of Rs.
