ISHWARDAS versus MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 13-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
ISHWARDAS 
v. 
MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS. 
March 13, 1?68 
[M. HlDAYATULLAH, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 
K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
. 
Bombay 1 c1ra11c,v · <n<I Agricu//ura/ Land~ (Vldarbha Region) 
Act, 
1958 ss. 2(12), 36(1)-Bombay Public Trusts Act s. 2(18)-1/ manag. 
ing trustee of a trust is (landlord) and tan •cultivdte personally' wi1hb1 s. 
2(12) to· be able to claim possession of 1/and under s. 36(1). 
The appellant was the Managing Trustee of a public charitable trust 
mai~taining a Dharamshala. 
He filed ,.an application under the provi-
sions of the Bombay Tenancy ana Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) 
Act, XClX of 1958 before the Naib Tehsildar, the third respondent to 
direct the fourth rc.'\pondent. the tenant, to. surrender foUr acres of land, 
on the ground that the lands were required for personal cultivation; 
According to the appellant, ihe necessary notices, te.rminating the tenancy 
of the fourth respondent, had· been given and he was entitled to get pas· 
session of the lands! 
The tenant raised a legal CQDtention th.at inas· 
much as the lands belonged to the Trust, the appellant could not be con· 
'idered .the landlord; the trust itself could not 'cultivate personally' the 
lands within the meaning ·Of the Act and therefore the appellant's appli-
cation was not· mairitainable. This contention was 
overruled 
and 
the 
tenant ordered to surrender poSBCssion of the land to the appellant. How· 
ever, the ~ant's appeal to the 
Special 
Deputy 
Collector, 
Tenancy 
Appeals, Akola, the second respondent, was allowed and this decision was 
·confirmed in revision by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur. A 
writ petition filed by the appellant was summarily rejected by the High 
Court. 
On appeal to this Cou<t, 
HELD : The appeol must be allowed and the order of the Naib 
Tchsildar restored. 
· 
Under s. 2(18), of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, a Trustee has been 
Jefined as mCanina a person, in whom either alone or in a~ociation wUh 
other per.1ons. the trust property is vested and includes a manager 
In 
view of this definition, it is clear that in the present case the properties 
?f the Trust ve$t in the Managing Trustee the appellani; and he is the 
landlord •. '!nder cl. (32). of s, 2. As trustee, he would have to administer 
the properties for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Trust· 
but, as the properties· vest in him and he is a 'landlord\ be can 3sk fo; 
a surrender from the tenant of the lands of the Trust 'to cultivate per· 
sonally'. 
He ciln cultivate the lands, either by his own labour or under 
•he per.1onal supervision of himself, by hired labour or by ,;,rvants as 
contemplated under sub-els; (i) or (iii), of cl. (12) of s. 2. As the pro-
perties vest in him, in law, cultivation by him. is to be considered 'on 
one's own account..' [444 H-445 CJ 
· 
Sliri Kala11ka Del'i ·samtha11, .Pat11r v. Pandu Maroti [1963) Mh L 
J. 249, referred 11>. 
· 
' 
· 
• 
. B11rasaheb v . . Yes11 Krishna, (1960) ·N.L.J. 219 and Keslieoraj Deo 
Sanst/ir.n, Karanja v. Bap11rao, ( 1964) Mh. L.J. 589, distinguished. 
442 
SUPREME t:OUllT REPORTS 
[1968] 3 S.C.R· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 641 of 
~ 
1966. 
Appeal by speciiil leave from the judgment and orded dated 
July 27, 1964 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in 
Special Civil Application No. 32 of 1964. 
R. V. S. Mani, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the appel· 
!ant attacks the judgment and order, dated July 27, 1964, of the 
Nagpur Bench, of the Bombay High Couri, dismissing Special 
C 
Civll Application No. 322 of 1964. 
Badridatta Ishwardas Trust is a 
publi9 
charitable 
trust, 
maintaining a Dharamshala. 
The 
appellant, 
the 
Maoaginjl 
Trustee of the said Trust, filed an appficaiion, under the provt· 
sioos of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural LaD!ls (Vidar-
0 
bha Region) Act, 1958 
(Bombay Act XCIX of 1958) (here-
inafter called the Act), before tbii Naib Tehsildar, Balapur (the 
third respondent, herein), io direct the fourth respondent,. the 
tenant, to surrender four acres of land, on the .ground that the 
lands were required for being cultivated personally. According 
io the appellant, the necessary notices, terminating the tenancy 
of the fourth respondent, had been given, under the Act, and 
E 
that he was entitled to get p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.