PUNDLIK KRISHNA JI AND ORS. versus TRIMBAK BHIKAJI PATIL AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 749 · Decided: 23-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNDLIK KRISHNA JI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
~ 
TRIMBAK BHIKAJI PATIL AND ORS. 
APRIL 23, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
B 
-"'1 
Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951-Section 8( l)(c)(f)-
Tenancy-Tennination-Applications by Karta off amity-Legality of. 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 c 
-Proceedings under-Non-Compliance of prior notice-Effect. 
Constitution of India, 195(}-Article 136-Appeal by special leav~Ap-
predation of High Court's finding-Lease deed dated 30-4-1951, whether 
~-
genuine. 
Respondent No.1 was the owner of the disputed land. The land was D 
in cultivating possession of the appellant-tenants since 1951. They ac· 
quired the status of protected lessees under the Berar Regulation of 
Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 and the Bombay Tenancy amt Agricultural 
Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. 
' 
E 
The respondent filing two separate applications against the appel~ 
lants. Initiated proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer for ejectme::it 
T 
of the appellants on the ground that predecessor of the appellant No.1 
created sub-leases in favour of appellant No.2 and another and as such 
their tenancy was liable to be terminated in term of section 8(1)(c)(t) of F 
the Berar Act. 
_-.,. 
The appellants resisted the applications contending that all the three 
persons were independent lessees in their own rights and as such there 
, 
was no question of appellant No.1 having crented sub-leases in favour of 
the other two. 
G 
The respondent No.1 produced a lease deed dated April 30, 1951 to 
prove that all the three tracts of land were leased to appellant No.1 and 
no part of the land was ever leased to appellant No.2 and another; and 
that the original lessee, appellant No.1, sub•leased part of the land to the 
.. 
~ 
other two occupants. 
H 
749 
750 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Sub~Divisional Officer allowed the applications of th~ respon-
dent No.1. 
The appellants filed appeals before the Sub-Deputy Collector against 
the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, which were dismissed. 
B 
The appellants-tenants went in revision before the Revenue. Tribunal •. 
The Tribunal allowed the revision petitions of the appellants. 
. ~ 
The respondent challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 25.3.1970 
in the High Court on 4.8.1971. In order to get over the delay in tiling the 
C writ petition the land-owner filed an affidavit stating that the papers in his 
office remained unattended du~ to oversight and pressure of work and as 
such the filing of the petitions was delayed. 
The High Court allowed the petitions of the land-owner. These 
appeals were filed by the tenants by way of special leave petitions against 
D 
the judgment of the High Court. 
E 
Allowing the appeals of the tenants, this Court, 
HELD : 1. There is no infirmity in the finding of the High Court that 
the respondent No.I being the Karta of the family could file the applica-· 
tions for termination of the tenancy without associating his brother. 
[155 li-756 AJ 
2 The High Court was also right in rejecting the contention of the 
tenant that the proceedings under the Bombay Act were illegal as the 
requirement of prior notice .under the said Act was not complied with. 
F 
~M 
3.01. The High Court erred in holding that the lease deed dated April 
30, 1951 was a genuine document. No enquiry was held at any stage 
regarding the genuineness of the lease deed. The Sub· ,Divisional Officer 
refused to go into the question on the ground that there were no pleadings 
G on the point. The Sub-Divisional Officer was obviously wrong because the 
lease deed was filed by the respondent-land-owner after the pleadings were 
completed. The Appellate Court was wholly unjustified in observing that 
the appellants-tenants had admitted the execution of the le:o-se deed. The 
appellants' case throughout had been that the lease deed was a forged 
H 
document. [756 8-C] 
·~ 
-
PUNDLIK KRISHNA JI v. T.B. PATIL [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
751 
~ 
3.02. The High Court should have remanded the case to Trial Court A 
for determining the genuineness of the lease deed dated April 30, 1951 
specially when the case of the respondent-land-owner was wholly based on 
the document. The High Court had no material before it to come to the 
conclusion that the lease deed was a genuine document. [756 D-E] 
---·( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 349-50 of B 
1978. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.1977 

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