http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: RANGNATH VISHNU MULLUCK & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VITHOBA RAMA RAHANE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/11/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S. RAJENDRA BABU.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J. The appellants who  were  the  purchasers  from  the landlord  have filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court in write petition No. 799 of 1982. The respondent-Vithoba was the tenant of nine pieces of lands.    In  respect  of  five  lands,  proceedings were initiated under Section  32-G  of  the  Bombay  Tenancy  and Agricultural Lands  Act  in  the year 1962.  On the basis of the statement alleged to have been made  by  the  tenant  on 5.8.1962  expressing  his  unwillingness  to  purchase those lands, an order  was  cased  declaring  the  statutory  sale ineffective.  The landlord obtained possession of those five lands on  the  basis of the said order.  So far as the other four lands are concerned, there was no order  in  favour  of the  landlord and yet he took over possession of those lands also.  The tenant, therefore,  filed  an  application  under Section  84  of the Act for summary eviction of the landlord from those lands.  The Agriculture Lands Tribunal  dismissed the same on the ground that the proper remedy for the tenant was  to make and application under Section 29 of the Act and not under Section 84.  The appeal  against  that  order  was dismissed.   The  Revision  Application  made to the Revenue Tribunal was also dismissed.  The  High  Court  allowed  the writ  petition  on  the  ground  that  the  tenant  had  not surrendered his tenancy rights in respect of those lands and the landlord had not obtained possession thereof in a lawful manner.  Since the landlord was in  unauthorised  possession of  those  lands  as he had no right to retain the same, the application made by the tenant under  Section  84  was  held proper and maintainable. In our opinion, the  High  Court  was  justified  in reversing  the  orders of the authorities below and allowing the writ petition. The High  Court  was  also  justified  in passing  an order of eviction against the appellants as they had no right to retain possession of the  said  lands.  This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.