Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The view which we have taken is supported by some of the decisions which have been referred to. It is necessary to refer to these decisions because the view taken has not throughout been consistent, Most of these cases are cases under the parallel provisions of Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948. Those provisions are identical with the provisions of Section 120 of the Vidarbha Act. The decisions therefore under the Bombay Act are equally applicable under the Vidarbha Act

21. Then we have a decision of another Division Bench (Mudholkar and Patel JJ.) in Anjalibai Ramchandra Yevalekar v. Shankar Bala Patil, Spl. Civil Appln. No. 3207 of 1958, D/- 10-2-1959 (Bom). In that case Anjalibai had made an application under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act to recover possession on the ground that the opponent Shankar Bala was her servant; that he had refused to execute a service agreement but had continued in possession and that therefore he was unauthorisedly in possession of the property and should be evicted. The Assistant Collector, Northern Division, Kolhapur held that she was entitled to recover possession of five fields since the opponent Shankar Bala was her servant and not a tenant, but as regards four fields he held that Shankar Bala had been on the land since 1954-55 as a tenant and possession had been taken from him without recourse to the Mamlatdar and that therefore the petitioner Anjalibai was not entitled to claim possession of those lands. In revision the Revenue Tribunal took the view that the application made by Anjalibai should have been treated as an application under Section 29 though she had made an application expressly under Section 84 and should be dealt with under the Tenancy Act. It was against that decision that Anjalibai the owner had applied to the High Court.

23. Then we come to a decision in which apparently a contrary view was taken and on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. Chandurkar. That is a decision in Shivanarayan Motilal Kabre v. Fakira Bala Roham, Spl. Civil Apnln. No. 529 of 1958, D/- 23-4-1958 (Bom) by a Division Bench consisting of Chainani J. as he then was (later C. J.) and Tarkunde J. In that case 'A' applied under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act for obtaining possession of the land from 'B' on the ground that he was a trespasser and was in unauthorised occupation of the land. 'B' contended that he was a tenant. The contention was accepted by the Prant Officer who upon that view dismissed the application under Section 84. Before the Division Bench the order of the Prant Officer was really not challenged at all, but only his jurisdiction to decide the application on the ground that 'B' had raised the contention that he was a tenant and the Prant Officer had no jurisdiction to decide that Issue. The Division Bench summarily ruled out the contention holding "This argument about the Prant Officer not having jurisdiction in the matter was not urged by the petitioner before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal. It cannot, therefore, be urged now". Thus so far as that decision was concerned the only point raised in the Special Civil Application was negatived on the short ground that it had not been raised before the Revenue Tribunal. There was no decision as such on the question of jurisdiction. There the matter should have ended but in the concluding portion of the judgment the Division Bench went on to make certain observations, which are the very basis of the contention raised by Mr. Chandurkar. Those observations were: