Shri Sampat Pandurang Ghadge vs Shri Ramchandra Maruti Sawant and Others

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.—This writ petition under Article 227 has been filed by the original opponent No. 2 who claims to be the tenant in respect of suit lands situate at village Degaon, Taluka Satara. The proceedings commenced with the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein u/s 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for a declaration that they are the tenants in respect of the suit lands. The tenancy Awal Karkun, Satara by judgment and order dated 13.12.1984 was pleased to allow the said application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and declared that they were the tenants in respect of suit lands including Survey No. 214/1 since prior to 1.4.1957 for all purposes and intent of the Tenancy Act. This judgment and order was taken exception to by the petitioner herein who was opponent No. 2 in the original application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara, Sub-division Satara. The Appellate Authority after considering the rival contentions allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. According to the Appellate Authority the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to produce any written lease deed or rent receipts or land revenue receipts which alone would have established the claim regarding their possession and tenancy in respect of suit lands. The Appellate Court further held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to take out any proceedings for fixation of purchase price u/s 32G of the Act, which would raise an adverse inference against them to negative their claim put forth in the application u/s 70(b) that they are tenants. The Appellate Court accordingly allowed the appeal and rejected the application preferred by respondents 1 to 3, Against this judgment, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Tribunal after considering the submissions took the view that merely because receipts were not produced by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would not non-suit them, as, in its view, receipts would not conclusively prove that the person was in possession as tenant in respect of the land. The Tribunal in its judgment affirmed the finding and conclusion reached by the Tenancy Awal Karkun. According to the Tribunal the approach of the Appellate Authority was wholly wrong and unsustainable. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the revision application preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and restored the order of the trial Court,

It is this Tribunal''s order which is challenged by the present writ petition, under Article 227. After going through the said judgment and the decision of the Trial Court I find no serious infirmity in the approach adopted by the Tribunal. The question whether respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were in occupation and possession of the suit lands on the tillers day has been considered by the first Court and which finding and conclusion has rightly been affirmed by the Tribunal. That apart, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned he is claiming to be the tenant through his father Shri Bandu Saya Ghadage who in turn had claimed to be tenant in respect of five of these lands on the tillers day. In other words, the predecessor of the petitioner had restricted his claim of tenancy rights only in respect of five lands and in respect of which an inquiry being No. 228 of village Degaon, u/s 32G was also initiated wherein it was conclusively held that the said Bandu Ghadage, the predecessor in title of the petitioner, had no relationship of tenant with the landlord respondent No. 4 herein Shri Maruti Dhondi Jagdale. From above, it is obvious that insofar as the petitioner is concerned he cannot be said to be an affected person in respect of the suit lands which were subject-matter of proceedings before the Tenancy Court between the predecessor in title of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 wherein it has been conclusively held that no relationship of tenant and landlord has been established between him and the respondent No. 4 inter se. Moreover, the said decision has attained finality. Besides the said five lands there is no material on record that the petitioner has any right or interest in respect of the other lands as tenant as rightly observed by the Trial Court that his name is not appearing as tenant in the other rights columns of Record of Rights in respect of those lands. Consequently, the petition at the instance of the present petitioner, who has no right, title or interest in respect of suit lands cannot be said to be competent. In my view, it is only the respondent No. 4 landlord who could have taken exception to the judgment of the Trial Court or the Tribunal which is under appeal in the present petition. On the other hand the Respondent No. 4 has not opposed the claim of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Taking any view of the matter I find no merits to interfere and hence the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.