9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Special Civil Applications leased out agricultural land in dispute comprised in a portion of R. Survey No. 25/1 and the whole of the Survey No. 26 admeasuring 4 acres and 8 gunthas and 16 acres and 36 gunghas respectively situate in the outskirt of village Haripur in Miraj Taluka of Sangli District of the erstwhile Miraj State (Junior) to Ganesh Bhikaji Bhide, father of Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide, respondent No. 1 herein, on an annual rent of ₹ 320/-. On March 23,1948, the said Vasudeo Balwant Telang gave notice to respondent No. 1 's father intimating the latter that the land taken by him under a kabulayat for cultivation up to April 10, 1948 would not be given to him for the next year. As there was no provision in the tenancy la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their possession. At or about this time, an entry was also made in the record of rights showing ₹ 20/ per bigha as the rent payable by each of the aforesaid three respondents. The total rent of ₹ 320/- per year computed at the said rate of ₹ 20/- per bigha per annum was apportioned between respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at ₹ 200/- ₹ 80/- and ₹ 40/- respectively. After their recognition as protected tenants in the record of rights, though respondents Nos. 1 to 3 started paying their share of the rent separately to Vasudeo Balwant Telang, the latter credited the payment only to the account of respondent No. 1. On February 21, 1953, Vasudeo Balwant Telang served separate notices under Section 31 of the 1948 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no default in payment of rent was made by them. They further pleaded that the agreed rent payable by them was ₹ 200/- ₹ 80/- and ₹ 40/- per year respectively. The Extra Awal Karkun, Miraj dismissed the application for possession of all the aforesaid parcels of land observing that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 being separate and independent tenants of the plots in their possession, the aforesaid notice of termination of the tenancy given by Vasudeo Balwant Telang to respondent No. 1 alone was invalid. The decision of the Extra Awal Karkun, Miraj was confirmed in appeal by the Special Deputy Collector, Tenancy Appeal, Sangli. On the matter being taken in revision, the Bombay Revenue Tribunal relying on a decision of the Bombay Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dar, Miraj Taluka for determination of the reasonable rent. While disposing of the revision application which arose out of Vasudeo Balwant Telang's application for possession on the ground of default in payment of rent, the Revenue Tribunal directed the Mamlatdar, Miraj Taluka at the request of the parties to try dispose of together all the three matters viz. the remanded application for possession on the ground of default in payment of rent, the application of Vasudeo Balwant Telang for declaration that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were joint tenants of the lands and the reference regarding the determination of reasonable rent for the years 1949-50 to 1953-54.Accordingly, the Mamlatdar, Miraj Taluka, recorded further evidence adduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector, Tenancy Appeal, Sangli, who allowed the same holding that respondents 2 and 3 continued to be the sub-tenants of respondent No. 1 even after they were declared to be protected tenants and that the notice of termination of the tenancy served by Vasudeo Balwant Telang on respondent No. 1 was valid. The special Deputy Collector further held that it had not been proved that the agreed rent was ₹ 320/- per year. The Special Deputy Collector further held that the tenancy created vide kabulayat dated July 14, 1948 executed by respondent No. 1 was to last for a period of ten years in accordance with Section 5 of the 1948 Act as it originally stood but the term regarding the payment of ₹ 700/- acre nt could not, as a result of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeals have been preferred. 3. As would be apparent from the above narrative, the instant case does not involve any substantial question of a law of general or public importance. Although counsel for the appellants has strenuously assailed the correctness of the findings of the Revenue Tribunal and of the High Court, we are unable to accede to his contention. We have not, despite careful consideration of the judgments and objections submitted to us, been able to discern any legal infirmity or error either in the decision of the Revenue Tribunal or of the High Court. It is a well settled rule of practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretionary power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
