Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The next contention of Mr. Oza is that the landlords' application, which in this case was an application under Section 84 of the Act, was not maintainable. Mr. Oza contends that the proper procedure for the landlords to follow was a procedure under Section 29 of the Act and he says that the landlords should have applied before the Mamlatdar and not before the Assistant Collector. There is no force in the above contention of Mr. Oza. In a ease where a person is a trespasser and is sought to be evicted, the only section in the Tenancy Act which could be invoked is Section 84. Section 29 has no application to a case where a person is unauthorisedly in possession of land. Now, in this case, as I have stated adve, there is no question of a contractual tenancy for ten years in favour of Hari Lala. Hari Lala's rights under the contractual tenancy under which he entered upon these lands came to an end upon the expiry of one year from the date upon which he went into occupation of the lands. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1948 Hari Lala became a statutory tenant, the period of such statutory tenancy being ten years. But it is to be noted, and I have already stated the reasons for this conclusion, that the rights of a tenant who is a statutory tenant are not heritable rights. The right of a statutory tenant to remain in possession of the land is merely k. a personal right. It is a right conferred upon him by a statute; it is not a right in property and therefore such right does not devolve upon his heirs after his death. In view of these circumstances, Bai Dhani's possession of the land which are the subject-matter of this application, being possession as a trespasser, the only remedy which was available to the landlords for evicting Bai Dhani from the lands was the remedy under Section 84 of the Act. Apart from the fact that this contention of Mr. Oza has no substance on merits, it may be remembered that this point, viz., that Section 84 of the Act would not be attracted in this case, was not taken by Mr. Oza's client before the Assistant Collector or even before the Eevenue Tribunal. That being so, the landlords had no opportunity to meet this point. Upon this ground also this particular point raised by Mr. Oza deserves to fail. However, as I have just stated, it fails even on merits.