Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: negative declaration in Shantabai Ramchandra Ghatge And Ors. vs Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik And Ors. on 27 March, 1972Matching Fragments
8. The facts in the second case which is unreported were slightly different. In that case, the respondent-landlord had made an application under Section 70 (b) of the Act against the petitioner-tenant for a declaration that the land was a grass land therefore was not governed by the Act. The trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the landlord and granted the declaration. In appeal, the Deputy Collector dismissed the application on the ground that such a declaration could not be granted by the competent authority under the Act. In revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the tenants were not the tenants of the suit land under the Act and restored the order of the trial Court. The tenants then came to this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1800 of 1965 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and one of the arguments advanced on behalf of the tenants was that the landlord could not adopt inconsistent stand and seek a negative declaration about the tenancy on the basis that the land was not governed by any of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, and the learned Judge who decided the application took the view that the landlord was justified in approaching the competent authority under Section 70 (b) of the Act for appropriate declaration because the only forum for the negative declaration about the tenancy rights claimed by the tenant under the Tenancy Act was the Court of the Mamlatdar. In this case also, the question whether or not the finding, recorded by the competent authority, that the tenant was not a tenant under the Act could be taken to be finding recorded with jurisdiction, when the competent authority after coming to the conclusion that the land was a grass land held that the Act did not apply, was not raised. In fact, it was not necessary to raise it because there was no question of application of the principle of res judicata involved in that case. It seems to me, therefore, that this case also does not help the respondents-landlords.