RAMESHCHANDRA DAULAL SONI vs. DEVICHAND HIRALAL GANDHI (DEAD) THR. LRS. SMT. GULABBAI DEVICHAND GANDHI

REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9834 OF 2016 Rameshchandra Daulal Soni & Anr.      .… Appellant(s)       Versus Devichand Hiralal Gandhi (Dead)                  ….Respondent(s) Thr.Lrs. Smt. Gulabbai Devichand  Gandhi & Ors. WITH    CIVIL APPEAL NO.8450/2019 J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J. 1.   Though different orders, dated 20.07.2015 passed in CRA   No.112/2012   and   dated   15.10.2018   passed   in   CRA No.157/2018 are assailed in these two appeals, issues for consideration however arise out of the common lis between the parties based on the judgment passed in the Regular Civil Signature Not Verified Suit   No.253/1989   to   which   the   appellants   in   C.A. Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2019.11.14 14:10:15 IST Reason: No.9834/2016   were   defendants   No.1   and   2   while   the Page 1 of 26 predecessor   of   appellants   in   C.A.   No.8450/2019   was defendant   No.5.     Hence   both   these   appeals   were   taken together for hearing and are being disposed by this common judgment.  For the sake of convenience and clarity the parties would be referred in the same rank assigned to them in the suit.  Since the claim of the appellants in C.A. No.8450/2019 is in  the  capacity  of   legal  representatives  of   the  deceased original defendant No.5, the case put forth by them will be considered by referring to them as defendant No.5. 2. The brief facts noticed for the purpose of disposal of these appeals is as hereunder.   The property bearing S.No. 9/1/A   measuring   22   guntas   situate   at   Chahurana   Bk., Taluka   Nagar,   Ahmednagar   District   presently   bearing   Plot No.19 within Ahmednagar Municipal Limits, measuring 2656 sq mtrs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’) which earlier belonged to Deshmukh Brothers was purchased by the plaintiff under a Sale Deed dated 08.08.1986.   The plaintiff thereafter secured the Revenue entries to be recorded in his name.     As   on   the   date   of   purchase   the   predecessor   of defendants No.1 and 2 was the tenant in respect of the suit Page 2 of 26 property   paying   the   rent   of   Rs.31/­   per   annum.     The defendants No.1 and 2 thereafter continued as the tenants. The plaintiff informed the defendants No. 1 and 2 through the communication dated 06.12.1986 about the  purchase  and had sought for payment of the rents.  The defendants No. 1 and  2   failed   to   pay   the   same   and   since   according   to  the plaintiff the defendants were also not using the premises for the purpose for which it was let out, the plaintiff termed the defendants   No.   1   and   2   as   defaulters   and   instituted   the Regular   Civil   Suit   No.253/1989   seeking   eviction   of   the defendants No. 1 and 2 as also the defendants No.3 to 7 whom   the   plaintiff   described   as   the   sub­tenants   in   the premises. 3. The defendants in the suit were issued with the suit summons.   The defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their respective written statement.  The defendants No. 3 and 5   did   not   choose   to   file   the   written   statement   while   the defendants No. 4, 6 and 7 did not appear before the Trial Court   and   were   therefore,   proceeded   ex­parte.     The defendants No. 1 and 2 opposed the claim made in the plaint Page 3 of 26 on merits, apart from contending that the suit was barred by limitation.    The fact that their predecessor had taken the premises under lease deed dated 22.05.1928 for a period of 31 years on the annual rent of Rs.31/­ was admitted and that the lease deed expired by efflux of time on 22.05.1959 was also stated. The said defendants however contended that they were not informed about the purchase by the plaintiff.  The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings had framed as many as eleven  issues.     The   parties  in   order   to  discharge   their burden cast under the issues had tendered evidence.   The Trial Court by its judgment dated 13.10.1998 decreed the suit and directed the defendants No.1 to 7 to handover actual physical possession of the suit property and also to pay the amount   of   Rs.162/­.     Further,   enquiry   regarding   mesne profits was also ordered.  The defendants No.1 and 2 claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil   Appeal   No.315/1998.     The   Appellate   Court   having adverted to the rival contentions has dismissed the appeal through the judgment dated 18.02.2012. The cross objections filed by the plaintiff and the defendants No.2 to 6 was also Page 4 of 26 dismissed.     The   defendants   No.1   and   2   claiming   to   be aggrieved by the said judgment were before the High Court of Judicature   at   Bombay,   Bench   at   Aurangabad   in   CRA No.112/2012. The High Court having taken note of the rival contentions has by a detailed order dismissed the revision application.   The analogous Civil Revision Applications filed by   the   remaining   defendants   in   CRA   No.113/2012   and 114/2012   were   also   disposed   of   by   the   same   common judgment dated 20.07.2015.   It is in that background, the defendants   No.1   and   2   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   the concurrent judgments are before this Court in this appeal. The connected appeal in C.A. No. 8450/2019 is against the order dated 15.10.2018 arising out of execution proceedings in regular darkhast No. 15 of 2016. 4. We   have   heard   Mr.   Siddharth   Bhatnagar,   learned senior   advocate   for   the   appellants   in   C.A.   No.9834/2016 (defendants No.1 and 2), Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned senior advocate   for   the   appellants   in   C.A.   No.8450/2019   (legal representatives of defendant No.5) Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned Page 5 of 26 counsel for the respondent (plaintiffs in the suit) and perused the appeal papers.   5. As   noticed,   the   suit   in   question   was   filed   by   the plaintiffs seeking eviction of the defendants No.1 and 2 who were   the   tenants   and   also   the   remaining   defendants   who were described as the sub­tenants.   Before adverting to the nature   of   contentions   put   forth   by   the   respective   learned senior advocates for the defendants which is emphasised on the very maintainability of the suit, it is necessary to, at the outset, take note of the nature of consideration made by the Trial Court which has been upheld by the Lower Appellate Court and the High Court respectively.   The nature of the contentions put forth by the parties is adverted to above.  On the rival pleadings to that effect the Trial Court framed the following issues which read as hereunder:

Page 6 of 26

6. In the background of the issues framed, the plaintiff No.1   examined   himself   as   PW­1   and   the   Trial   Court   has taken note of his deposition as at Exhibit 78.  The manner in which the plaintiff had acquired right to the property has been stated and the Sale Deed was also marked in evidence as Exhibit 77/4.   The fact of purchase was informed to the defendants No.1 and 2 through the notice dated 16.12.1986 which   was   marked   as   Exhibit   80.     The   said   notice   was essentially in the nature to attorn the tenancy whereupon the defendants No.1 and 2 were required to recognise the plaintiff as the landlord and pay the rent accordingly.  The fact that the defendants No.1 and 2 were continuing as the tenants in respect of the suit schedule property under the lease deed dated 16.07.1928 was also brought in evidence by marking Page 7 of 26 the same as Exhibit 100 whereunder the predecessor of the vendors   of   the   plaintiff   had   leased   the   property   to   the predecessor of the defendants No.1 and 2.  The fact that the lease was for 31 years was established and the Trial Court in that regard had also taken into consideration that the lease had come to an end by efflux of time as contemplated under Section   111   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act.     In   that circumstance, the defendants No.1 and 2 were considered to be the statutory tenants under the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Rent Act’ for short). Thus,   having   determined   the   relationship   of   landlord   and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and 2 the Trial Court proceeded to consider the other aspects of the matter.  In that regard the provision as contained in Section 5(11) of the Rent Act was taken note.  7. Insofar   as   the   defendants   No.3   to   7   though   the plaintiffs had contended that they are the sub­tenants under the defendants No.1 and 2, in the absence of there being plausible   evidence   relating   to   subletting,   the   Trial   Court rejected the contention and held them to be the trespassers Page 8 of 26 liable   to   be   evicted   and,   in   such   event,   directed   all   the defendants to vacate.   Insofar as the ground on which the eviction was sought, namely, the defendants No.1 and 2 had failed to pay the rent and, therefore, they were defaulters and also   that   the   property   was   not   being   put   to   use   for   the purpose   which   it   had   been   rented   out,   the   trial   court considered these aspects while answering issue Nos.2 to 4. In that regard the notice issued by the plaintiff at Exhibit 96 and the postal receipts at Exhibits 97 and 98 was taken into consideration   whereby   the   plaintiff   had   demanded   for payment of the rents.  In that background the reply issued by the defendants No.1 and 2 at Exhibit 99 was taken note and the Court was of the view that the defendants No.1 and 2 did not indicate their readiness and willingness to pay the arrears of rent.  Further the evidence tendered by defendant No.1 at Exhibit 106 was taken note wherein he had stated that the rent had not been paid from the year 1959 as nobody had demanded the rent from him.  While taking note of the same the  trial  court  has   taken  into   consideration  that  the   said statements of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted inasmuch as the plaintiff in fact had issued the notice on 01.09.1988 Page 9 of 26 whereby the demand had been made.  In that background the default in payment of rent was accepted and held against the defendants No.1 and 2.   8. Insofar as the non­user of the premises for the purpose which it had been rented out, the evidence to the effect that the premises was given for the purpose of storage of goods namely cotton was taken into consideration.   The fact that there was a shed and the same not being put to use for the last several years as it was in a dilapidated condition was also taken   note.     Though   a   report   of   the   Commissioner   as   at Exhibit 10 was available on record the same was not taken into consideration and relied upon for technical reasons.  Be that   as   it   may,   the   trial   court   has   also   taken   into consideration the deposition of the defendant No.1 that he has   been   practising   as   an   advocate   in   the   High   Court  of Bombay and that at the point when the premises was taken on   lease   the   grandfather   of   defendant   No.1   was   doing business of  cotton  ginning  factory and   he  was  also doing business in foodgrain.  He had admitted that the business of cotton   ginning   factory   is   closed   due   to   ban   imposed   by Page 10 of 26 Maharashtra Cotton Act and the premises is not used for storage of cotton but was being used for storing agricultural equipments and cement.  In that view, the trial court had also held that the premises was not being used for the purpose it had been leased and accordingly the grounds on which the eviction petition had been filed was upheld.   9. On the contention relating to the defendants Nos.3 to 5 the same was considered while answering issue No.5 and as indicated above though they were not accepted to be the sub­ tenants as claimed by the plaintiff, the trial court has held that they are trespassers and not entitled to continue in the premises.   The lower appellate court had taken note of the evidence, reappreciated the same and in that background had upheld the judgment passed by the trial court. 10. On   the   factual   aspects   of   the   matter   though   Mr. Siddharth   Bhatnagar,   learned   senior   advocate   sought   to assail the concurrent judgements, we notice that the evidence available on record has been assessed by the trial court as also the appellate court and have recorded a finding of fact with regard to the relationship between the parties and also Page 11 of 26 the ground on which the eviction had been sought.  In that circumstance   when   we   notice   that   such   finding   is   with reference to the oral evidence tendered and the documents that were relied upon and marked before the trial court, the finding of fact recorded cannot be considered as perverse so as to interfere in a proceeding of the present nature.   The learned   senior   advocate   would,   however,   contend   that   the suit   schedule   property   admittedly   was   leased   to   the predecessor  of   defendants  No.1  and  2  and   in  view  of   the death of the original tenant the defendants No.1 and 2 have been arrayed as parties.  It is contended that the defendants No.1 and 2 had two sisters who were also the legal heirs of the original tenant but not made defendants.  In that regard it   was   contended   that   in   a   circumstance   where   the predecessor was a statutory tenant, on the death of such statutory tenant the tenancy is inheritable by all the legal heirs and all of them were proper and necessary parties.  To contend so the learned senior advocate has referred to the provision   contained   in   Section   5(11)(c)(ii)   which   reads   as hereunder: Page 12 of 26 “In   this   Act   unless   there   is   anything repugnant to the subject or context. (11) “rent” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises and include, (c)(ii) in relation to any premises let for the purposes of education, business, trade or storage, when the tenant dies, whether the death   has   occurred   before   or   after   the commencement   of   the   said   Act,   any member of  the  tenant’s  family using  the premises for the purposes of education of carrying on business, trade or storage in the premises, with the tenant at the time of his   death,   or,   in   the   absence   of   such member, any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court.”  11.    The learned senior advocate in that regard, to contend that all the legal representatives of the statutory tenant would be entitled to continue as tenants and that the High Court has   committed   an   error   in   holding   that   they   are   not   the tenants in common, has referred to the decisions in the case of  1976(4) SCC Damadi Lal & Ors. vs. Parash Ram & Ors.  855 wherein inter alia it is held that the statutory tenancy under   the   Rent   Act   is   heritable.     To   the   same   effect   the decision in the case of  Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar Page 13 of 26 &   Ors .   1985   (2)   SCC   683   is   relied   upon.     Further,   the decision in the case of   Uttam vs. Saubagh Singh & Ors. 2016 (4) SCC 68 is relied upon to contend that when a male Hindu   dies   after   commencement   of   Hindu   Succession   Act 1956,   and   in   view   of   the   second   exception   engrafted   on proposition (i) is contained in the proviso to Section 6, which states that if such a male Hindu had died living behind a female   relative   specified   in   class   1   of   the   schedule   such female   relative   surviving   him   would   have   interest   in   the coparcenary property to contend that the statutory tenancy being   heritable   with   rights   attached   to   it,   the   sisters   of defendants No. 1 and 2 are also entitled to such right. 12. Having taken note of the contentions put forth, to the extent of the position of law as enunciated in the decisions cited supra there can be no quarrel whatsoever.   However, what is necessary to be taken note is the fact situation in the instant   case   to   arrive   at   a   conclusion.     The   provision   in Section   5(11)(c)(ii)   noted   supra   is   clear   that   the   persons carrying on the business with the statutory tenant at the time of death would   be  entitled  to  continue   as a tenant.    The Page 14 of 26 second part of the said provision is that in the absence of such member any heir of the deceased tenant as may be decided by the Court in default of agreement, would get the right.  In the instant case the contention being urged that the two daughters of the deceased tenants were also entitled to be considered as the tenants under the statutory tenant, is a belated   claim   as   an   afterthought.     As   taken   note   while considering the factual aspect it has come on record that the plaintiff   after   having   purchased   the   property   under   a registered sale deed had issued the notice dated 16.12.1986 as   at   Exhibit   80   and   the   trial   court   has   also   recorded   a finding that through the said notice the plaintiff had informed the defendants No. 1 and 2 about the purchase of the suit property.  That apart, subsequently a notice as at Exhibit 96 was issued to the defendants No. 1 and 2 demanding the arrears of rent.  The said notice in fact had been replied by the  defendants  No. 1 and  2 through the  reply marked at Exhibit 99.  Neither at the first instance when the notice at Exhibit 80 was issued was it indicated by the defendants No. 1 and   2   that   their   sisters   had   also  become   the   statutory tenants and the notice in the nature of attornment of tenancy Page 15 of 26 should be issued to them as well, nor in the reply which had been issued when the arrears of rent was demanded did the defendants No. 1 and 2 contend that they were not the only one who were involved in the business along with the original statutory   tenant   and,   therefore,   all   the   legal   heirs   had succeeded as tenants on the death of the statutory tenant and, therefore, the demand, if any, is to be made from all of them. 13. Though such contention is put forth the defendants No.1 and 2 did not attribute any right in favour of the sisters. In fact, as noted by the trial court the defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed on record pursis with a Exhibit 137­A claiming to have deposited Rs. 1000/­ on 09.9.2007 at ‘C’ Register No. 465 without prejudice to their rights towards the rent, causes of the suit etc.  This in our opinion would indicate that the defendants No. 1 and 2 were claiming right for themselves and   did   not   at   that   stage   state   about   the   right   if   any, possessed by their sisters as well and have now raised the contention as an afterthought.   Further in the evidence of defendant No. 1 he states that his grandfather took the suit Page 16 of 26 premises   on   lease   for   the   purpose   of   business   of   cotton ginning factory and he further states that the defendant No. 1 used   the   premises   to   store   food   grain   and   equipment   of agricultural and also cement.   This would indicate that the defendant was referring to the business being carried on by him alone and there is no reference to the business being jointly carried on with his sisters or that none of the legal representatives including defendant No. 1 were carrying on business with the statutory tenant so as to  claim benefit of the   second   part   of   Section   5   (11)   (c)   (ii)   and   claim   joint inheritance of tenancy.  Further the said position is also clear from   the   evidence   of   the   defendant   witness   Shri   Vanaji Dhoodiram   Dani   who   was   examined   to   indicate   that   the premises was being used for the business and in that regard, in   the   course   of   his   evidence   he   has   stated   that   the defendants No. 1 and 2 are keeping cement and food grain in the godown and that he is serving with the defendants 1 and 2 since last 10 to 12 years but has not stated about the sisters also being involved in the business.   If that be the position even from the evidence of the said witness, it would be clear that only first part of Section 5 (11) (c) (ii) would be Page 17 of 26 available and the sisters of defendant No. 1 and 2 cannot claim right merely due to the fact that they are the legal heirs of the deceased tenant.  14. That apart the suit had been filed in the year 1989 and the same had crossed the stage of appeal as well as revision before   the   High   Court   which   had   come   to   an   end   on 20.07.2015.  In none of these proceedings the said sisters of defendants   No.1   and   2   have   taken   any   steps   to   get themselves impleaded by contending that they are proper and necessary parties failing which their right would be affected. At this stage it is necessary to take note that the learned counsel for the parties have brought to the notice of this Court that the said two sisters have filed a Civil Suit bearing No.516/2015 for declaration of their right which is pending before   the   Civil   Court.     The   very   sequence   noticed   above would indicate that the said sisters had not put forth their claim earlier and the present suit appears to be a ploy to put a spoke in the wheel on realising that the contention as put forth  by  defendants   No.1   and   2   did   not  yield   the  desired result inasmuch as the Civil Revision Application came to be Page 18 of 26 dismissed in the year 2015.   Hence, neither the provision of the Rent Act or the decisions relied upon supra will be of assistance   to   the   defendants   No.   1   and   2.     In   that circumstance   the   contention   as   put   forth   by   the   learned senior advocate for the defendants No.1 and 2 is liable to be rejected, which we accordingly do. 15. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned senior advocate for the legal representatives of defendant No.5 would contend that defendant No.5 was an agricultural tenant in respect of the suit   schedule   property   and   as   such   the   rights   inter­se between   the   parties   is   governed   under   the   Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (‘MTAL Act’ for short). He   contends   that   under   the   said   Act   there   is   a   bar contemplated under Section 85 of the Act against the Civil Court   entertaining   any   question   which   is   required   to   be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, Manager, the Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In that view, it is contended that the suit schedule property being an agricultural property, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction.  The learned senior advocate has referred to Page 19 of 26 a   document   at   Annexure   P­1,   namely,   7/12   extract   to indicate that the name of the defendant No.5 is depicted as tenant in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property.  It is   his   further   contention   that   in   the   lease   deed   dated 22.05.1928 (Annexure P­2) executed by the predecessor of the plaintiff in favour of the predecessor of the defendants No.1 and 2, in Clause 6 thereof it makes a reference to the existence of a hut of the agricultural tenant in the land and that it should be kept as it is and that the lessee will not obstruct them.   In that view, it is contended that the said document would establish that the land in question is an agricultural   land   and   the   Civil   Court   ought   not   to   have entertained the suit.   The learned senior advocate in that regard   has   referred   to   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. Vs. Kashinath Janardhan Trade & Anr , (1983) 3 SCC 437 wherein it is held as hereunder: “6 . The Tenancy Act was comprehensively amended by Amending Act 15 of 1957. The amendment brought in a revolutionary measure of agrarian reforms making tiller of the soil the owner of the land. This was done to achieve the object of removing all intermediaries between tillers of the soil and the State. Section 32 provides that by mere operation of law, every tenant of agricultural land situated in the area to Page 20 of 26 which the Act applies shall become by the operation of law, the owner thereof. He is declared to be a deemed purchaser without anything more on his part. A Constitution Bench of this court in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhiv. State of Bombay [1959 Supp 1 SCR 489, 518-19 : AIR 1959 SC 459 : 1959 SCJ 679] held that: “The title of the landlord to the land passes immediately to the tenant on the tillers' day and there is a completed purchase or sale thereof as between the landlord and the tenant. The title of the land which was vested originally in the landlord passes to the tenant on the tillers' day and this title is defeasible only in the event of the tenant failing to appear or making a statement that he is not willing to purchase the land or commit default in payment of the price thereto as determined by the Tribunal.” Therefore, it is unquestionably established that on the tillers' day, the landlord's interest in the land gets extinguished and simultaneously by a statutory sale without anything more by the parties, the extinguished title of the landlord is kindled or created in the tenant. That very moment landlord-tenant relationship as understood in common law or Transfer of Property Act comes to an end. The link and chain is broken. The absent non-cultivating landlord ceases to have that ownership element of the land and the cultivating tenant, the tiller of the soil becomes the owner thereof. This is unquestionable. The landlord from the date of statutory sale is only entitled to receive the purchase price as determined by the Tribunal under Section 32-G. In other words, the landlord ceases to be landlord and the tenant becomes the owner of the land and comes in direct contact with the State. Without any act of transfer inter vivos the title of the landlord is extinguished and is created simultaneously in the tenant making the tenant the deemed purchaser. It is an admitted position that on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the landlord and Janardhan was the tenant. Tarachand landlord was under no disability as envisged by Section 32-F. Therefore on April 1, 1957 Janardhan became deemed purchaser and Mr Lalit could not controvert this position.” Page 21 of 26 16. The   position   of   law   and   decision   cited   cannot   be applied in abstract.   Therefore, the fact situation is to be noticed.   Hence having taken note of the above contention what is noticed at the outset is that the predecessor of the appellants, namely, the defendant No.5 did not choose to file the written statement in the suit.  In that circumstance the contention to the effect that the suit schedule property or a portion thereof was an agricultural property was never the contention raised in the suit or as to whether the issue in the suit should be referred to the Authority under the MTAL Act. In that view no issue in that regard arose before the trial court   to   consider   as   to   whether   the   Civil   Court   had   the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.  That apart the undisputed fact is that the legal representatives of defendant No.5 had assailed   the   judgment   of   the   court   below   in   CRA No.114/2012   which   was   considered   along   with   CRA No.112/2012 and claiming to be aggrieved by the dismissal of the CRA No.114/2012 had preferred SLP(C) No.31644/2015 before   this   Court.     This   Court   through   the   order   dated 23.11.2015   had   dismissed   the   Special   Leave   Petition. Page 22 of 26 Despite failing in the very proceeding relating to which the execution   petition   has   been   initiated   the   said   legal representatives   of   defendant   No.5   filed   the   application   in execution proceedings claiming to be agricultural tenants and defeat the execution by terming the decree as a nullity.  It is in the said proceedings the executing court having taken into consideration all aspects, dismissed the application by the order dated 15.10.2018.   The executing court thus having taken into consideration the order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the High Court in CRA Nos.112, 113 and 114 of 2012 has dismissed the application.   Further the right as claimed by the said legal representatives based on the entry contained in 7/12 extract has been rejected.  We find no error committed by the executing court for the following reasons.   17. In our view even assuming for a moment that the name of the  predecessor  was indicated  in the  7/12 extract, the basis of such entry is not demonstrated to be made after the procedure   being   followed.     Though   the   learned   senior advocate has relied on the reference contained in the lease deed dated 22.05.1928 that the hut of the agricultural tenant Page 23 of 26 is situate in the leased land, there is no reference made to the name of such tenant so as to indicate that the reference is to their predecessor i.e. defendant No.5 nor can the co­existence of the agricultural operations being carried out in the land which was leased for storage of goods be assumed without definite material or demarcation indicated from records.  The reference is only to the existence of a hut.  That apart even if the same is taken as a reference to the defendant No.5 in the year 1928 the tenancy being continued and being operational on the tiller’s day i.e. 01.04.1957 is to be established to claim right under MTAL Act.  Further while the MTAL Act creates right in favour of the agricultural tenant as on the appointed day the further procedure as contemplated is also required to be followed under Section 32G of the said Act.  In the instant case apart from the fact that no such contention was urged in the   suit   by   filing   a   written   statement,   no   document   to indicate that the procedure contemplated under the MTAL Act has been followed is available so as to conclude that the defendant No.5 had become the landlord of the property by operation of  law so  as to bar the  jurisdiction of  the  Civil Court.   Page 24 of 26 18. In that view, the decision referred to supra by learned senior advocate would not be of assistance in the present case since the said decision only indicates the legal position and was applicable in the said case since in that case it was an admitted position that as on 01.04.1957 Tara Chand was the landlord and Janardan was the tenant.   On the other hand,   in   the   present   facts   as   already   noticed   no   such contention was taken at the first instance nor has it been conclusively   established   that   the   defendant   No.5   was   an agricultural tenant more so in the circumstance where the suit   schedule   property   did   not   continue   to   exist   as   an agricultural property but was within Ahmednagar Municipal Limits which was a Town Planning Scheme as on the date of the suit.  Though we are not oblivious to the fact that certain agricultural properties would subsequently get included in the Town Planning Scheme, in the instant facts if the claim of the defendant No.5 is to be taken note, not only the reliance on 7/12 extract but a subsequent inclusion of the name in the Municipal records based on any right that was crystalized in favour of defendant No. 5 based on the MTAL Act was also necessary to be established.  In the absence of the same the Page 25 of 26 contention put forth by the learned senior advocate cannot be accepted.    19. In the above circumstance, when the contentions as urged by the learned senior advocate for defendants No.1 and 2 as also the defendant No.5 are unsustainable and in that background when we have noticed that all three Courts have concurrently appreciated the material available on record and have   recorded   a   finding   of   fact   to   order   eviction   of   the defendants,   we   see   no   reason   to   interfere   either   with   the judgment dated 20.07.2015 passed in CRA No.112/2012 or the judgment dated 15.10.2018 in CRA No.157/2018.  20. Both the appeals accordingly stand dismissed with no order   as   to   costs.     Pending   applications   if   any   are   also disposed of. ….……………………….J.                                           (R. BANUMATHI)          ….……………………….J.                                           (A.S. BOPANNA) ….……………………….J.                                               (HRISHIKESH ROY) New Delhi, November 14, 2019 Page 26 of 26