Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subhash s/o Pandurang Bagal, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 14th October 1991 in File No. 1976/B910. The background facts are that one Vithal s/o Rangrao Lomte was the original landlord of Survey No.100/C and 104/C (Gat No.285) admeasuring 9 Hectares 71 Ares situated at village Hasegaon (Shiradhon), Taluka Kallam, District Osmanabad. Vithal Lomte had a daughter named Kondabai, who died before him. Vithal Lomte died on 11th December 1966. The petitioner is the son of Kondabai. The petitioner claimed that the deceased Vithalrao executed a registered will deed on 2nd December 1966 in his favour, and that the Revenue Authority mutated his name in the revenue record by mutation entry No.27. The petitioner claimed to be the only legal representative and owner of the suit property. On 31st December 1990, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28(1) read with Section 32(2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 before the Tahsildar, Kallam, seeking possession of the suit land, contending that the respondent (Mohan s/o Vithoba Kanade) had defaulted in payment of rent for the years 1966-67, 1967-68, and 1968-69, despite notices of termination of tenancy dated 25th November 1967, 30th November 1968, and 31st December 1969. The respondent filed a written statement on 25th August 1971 denying knowledge of the will and stating that he had deposited the rent with the Tahsildar on 19th September 1967, 10th April 1968, and 15th April 1969. The legal issues were whether the petitioner had proved the will and whether the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent. The court analyzed that the petitioner failed to prove the will as no attesting witness was examined, and mere registration does not prove execution. Further, the tenant had deposited rent with the Tahsildar, which constitutes valid payment. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish his title and the tenant's default. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Eviction on Ground of Default - Burden of Proof - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Sections 19, 28, 32(2) - The petitioner sought possession alleging default in rent payment by the tenant. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove the will under which he claimed title, and also failed to prove that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent, as the tenant had deposited rent with the Tahsildar. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-6) B) Evidence - Will - Proof of Execution - The petitioner relied on a registered will dated 2nd December 1966. The court noted that the will was not proved in accordance with law, and mere registration does not prove its execution. The petitioner did not examine any attesting witness. (Para 5) C) Tenancy Law - Payment of Rent - Deposit with Tahsildar - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Sections 19, 28 - The tenant deposited rent with the Tahsildar on 19th September 1967, 10th April 1968, and 15th April 1969. The court held that such deposit constitutes valid payment of rent, and the petitioner's claim of default was not established. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, claiming as a legatee under a will, is entitled to possession of the suit land on grounds of default in payment of rent by the respondent tenant.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on petitioner to prove will and default
- Mutation entry not conclusive of title
- Tenant's deposit of rent with Tahsildar constitutes valid payment
- Sections 19 and 28 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1950 require notice of termination and default
