Dattatraya S/o Waman Deshmukh Jadhav(Dead)Thr. LRS. & Ors. vs Bhaskar S/o Tejrao Deshmukh (Dead by Lrs.) & Ors

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

What does emerge from the proceedings of the Civil Court is that an issue No.3-A was cast qua the aspect of the claim of tenancy of the appellant and the matter was referred to the Tehsildar, Jafrabad which is the competent authority. It, however, appears that that aspect was initially decided in favour of the respondent but the appellant went in appeal before the Deputy Collector, who had remitted the matter back to the Tehsildar, Jafrabad who then decided the aspect in favour of the appellant pertaining to Gat No.71 of the suit property and the appeal preferred by the respondent was pending.

The appeal was again partly allowed while remitting the matter back to the Tehsildar vide order dated 03.04.2007. It was opined that since the second appeal filed by the appellant(s) No.1490/2005 was pending before the High Court, that decision would be binding upon both the parties.

Surprisingly, instead of deciding that issue, the appellate authority decided to hold that further action should be taken by the Tehsildar only after the second appeal has been decided by the High Court, which is really putting the cart before the horse.

The result of the aforesaid would be that the aspect of tenancy would have to be decided by the Tehsildar and we say so as the Tehsildar's opinion would be final on the issue of tenancy, subject to any further remedies provided in those proceedings.

We do sympathize with the respondent(s) that after so many years they are not aware of their fate as to whether they can succeed in the proceedings to get possession or not. On the various aspects urged by the appellant(s), except the tenancy rights issue, we find no merit, and, thus, would not like to disturb the impugned order on those aspects. We are however, of the view that the crucial issue of tenancy rights would have to be determined by the Tehsildar. Naturally, that aspect would not be influenced by the proceedings which have given rise to the present appeal.

We, thus, consider it appropriate, in the peculiar facts of the case, and looking to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice between the parties, to direct as under:

1) The Tehsildar, Jafrabad would decide the issue of tenancy rights inter se the parties within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.

2) Any further proceedings by the unsuccessful parties i.e. the appeal and thereafter revision before the MRT, would also be decided within a period of three months from the date of preference by the aggrieved party.

Depending on the fate of those proceedings including any further proceedings before the High Court and this Court, the two parties before us would either fail or succeed. If the tenanted rights are established in favour of the appellants, the appellants succeed, while if it is not so, the respondents succeed. If the respondents succeed, the impugned decree stands, while if the appellants succeed, naturally the impugned decree will not have the effect of law.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to their own costs.