Appeal No 641 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 27 1964 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No 32 of 1964
R V section Mani for the appellant
The respondent did not appear
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam J
In this appeal by special leave the appellant attacks the judgment and order dated July 27 1964 of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing Special Civil Application No 322 of 1964
Badridatta Ishwardas Trust is a public charitable trust maintaining a Dharamshala
The appellant the Managing Trustee of the said Trust filed an application under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act 1958 Bombay Act XCIX of 1958 here inafter called the Act before the Naib Tehsildar Balapur the third respondent herein to 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 to the appellant the necessary notices terminating the tenancy of the fourth respondent had been given under the Act and that he was entitled to get possession of the lands in question
The fourth respondent raised various objections on merits but all those objections were over ruled by the third respondent
The fourth respondent raised a legal contention that inasmuch as the lands in question belonged to the Trust the appellant Managing Trustee could not be considered to be the landlord
He further contended that the Trust itself could not cultivate personally  the lands and therefore the application filed by the appellant was not maintainable
The third respondent overruled these objections on the ground that the Managing Trustee was a person in whom the properties of the Trustee vested in law and therefore it was open to him to make a claim for possession of the lands from a tenant on the ground that they were required for personal cultivation 
In this view the third respondent further held that the Managing Trustee was a landlord under the Act entitled to get possession of the lands
Finally the third respondent ordered the tenant to surrender possession of the land as required by the appellant
The order of the third respondent was challenged by the tenant in appeal before the Special Deputy Collector Tenancy 443 Appeals Akola the second respondent
The latter by order dated October 30 1963 reversed the decision of the Naib Tehisildar
The second respondent accepted the appellant s plea that he was the Managing Trustee of the Trust in question but took the view that a claim on behalf of a Trust for personal cultivation under the Act could not be made as a Trust was incapable of cultivating lands personally
The second respondent followed in this regard the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Shri Kalanka Devi Sansthan Patur vs Pandu Maroti1 which had held that a Deity or Sansthan which is a juristic person could hold property but could not act except through a Wahiwatdar or Manager and as such was incapable of cultivating lands personally
In this view the second respondent held that the appellant was not a person capable of cultivating land personally and as such was not entitled to ask for surrender of the lands from the tenant
The appellant went up in revision against this order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur the first respondent
That Tribunal took the view that the case was governed by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Buvasaheb vs Yesu Krishna  and dismissed the revision
The High Court summarily rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant against this order
Mr R V section Mani learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two contentions before us  1 that the appellant being a Managing Trustee of the Public Charitable Trust the properties of the Trust vested in law in him and so he was the landlord under the Act entitled to ask for possession of the lands for personal cultivation and 11 if the Managing Trustee was not so entitled under the Act such of the provisions of the Act which were to be construed as denying the fundamental rights of the appellant would have to be struck down as violative of articles 14 and 191f of the Constitution
There has been no appearance before us on behalf of the respondents
At the outset it has to be stated that in the grounds of appeal filed in this Court there has been a mixing up of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Bombay Act LXVII of 1948 and
the Act but on a careful perusal of the proceedings before the Revenue Tribunals it is seen that the proceedings were initiated by the appellant under the Act and therefore we shall refer to the material provisions of that Act
We may further add that in the view that we take regarding the construction to be placed on the material provisions of the Act it becomes unnecessary for us to consider the second contention raised by Mr Mani for the appellant
1 1963Mh
LJ249
2 1960 NLJ 219
444 Section 2 of the Act contains the definitions of the various expressions occurring in the Act
Clause 12 omitting the Explanations reads 12 to cultivate personally  means to cultivate on one s own account i by one s own labour or ii by the labour of any member of one s family or iii under the personal supervision of one self or of any member of ones family by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share  Clause 31 defines tenancy  as meaning that relationship of landlord and tenant
Under clause 32 tenant  means a person who holds land on lease and include a a person who is deemed to be a tenant under sections 6 7 or 8 b a person who is a protected lessee or occupancy tenant and the word landlord shall be constructed accordingly
It must be noted that there is no separate definition of the word landlord  but as provided in cl 32 the word landlord  has to be construed accordingly
There is no controversy in this case that the fourth respondent is a tenant  as defined in cl
32 of section 2
The appellant gave the necessary notice as required by sub section 1 of section 38 claiming that he bona fide required the land for cultivating it personally
It was after complying with the provisions of this section that he applied for possession of the land  under section 361 of the Act
The  claim
of the Managing Trustee in this case is that he intends to cultivate personally  the lands in question
The objection raised by the fourth respondent to the appellant s claim was that the properties belonged to the Trust and a Trust could not cultivate personally  lands
It was further urged that if the Managing Trustee cultivated the lands of the Trust he could not be considered to cultivate on one s own account  as any cultivation by the Managing Trustee of Trust lands must necessarily be on account of the Trust therefore section 2 12 will not be satisfied
This objection found favour with respondents I  and 2
The High Court also appears to agree with their views as is evident from the fact that it dismissed the Writ petition of the appellant summarily To consider the soundness of the objection raised by the tenant it is necessary to refer in law to the position of a Trustee vis a vis Trust properties
Under section 2 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act a Trustee has been defined as meaning a person in 445 whom either alone or in association with other persons the trust property is vested and includes a Manager
In view of this definition it is clear that in this case the properties of the Trust vest in the Managing Trustee Pandit Ishwardas and he is the landlord  under cl
32 of section 2
No doubt as Trustee he will 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  he can ask for a surrender from the tenant of the lands of the Trust to cultivate personally 
He can cultivate the lands either by his own labour or under the personal supervision of himself by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind as contemplated under sub cls
i or iii of cl
12 of section 2
As the properties vest in him in law cultivation by him
as indicated above is to be considered on one s own account  Thus the requirements of section 381 read with section 212 are amply satisfied in this case
It follows that the application filed by the appellant was maintainable and the order of the third respondent accepting the appellant s claim is correct
In our opinion the decision of the Bombay High Court in Buvasaheb s case  relied on by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for disallowing the claim of the appellant has no application to the case on hand
The question that arose for consideration in that decision was as to whether a Wahiwatdar or Manager of lands belonging to a Deity was entitled to apply under section 34 read with section 26 of Bombay Act LXVII of 1948 for surrender of lands from the tenant for personal cultivation
The High Court held that there was a distinction between a Trustee in whom the properties of the trust vest in law and a Manager or a Shebait of the properties which vest in an idol which is the legal owner
On this basis the learned Judges have held that inasmuch as the legal ownership of the property in the case before them vested in the idol and as the Manager or Wahiwatdar of such property was no more than an administrator of the property managing that property for and on
behalf of the idol he was not a landlord  and hence could not Apply for surrender of lands from a tenant on the ground of personal cultivation
It is their further view that it is only the person in whom the legal ownership of the lands vest who can be regarded as the landlord and who alone can apply on the ground that he requires the land bona fide for personal cultivation
The expressions to cultivate personally  tenant  and landlord  which the learned Judges had to consider in Bombay Act LXVII of 1948 are substantially similar to the definitions contained in the Act
We may also refer to a later decision of the Bombay High Court in kesheoraj Deo Sansthan Karanja vs Bapurao2
In 1 1960 NLJ219
2 1964 Mh
LJ 589 446 that decision the learned Judges had to consider the
identical provisions of the Act
The claim for personal cultivation in that case was made by the Manager of a private Sansthan
The learned Judges held that Sansthan is a juristic person in whom the properties vest
They further held that cultivation through an agency like a Manager on behalf of a juristic person did not come within the ambit of the definition to cultivate personally  in section 212 of the Act
They also held that an idol or a juridical person like the Sansthan was not capable of cultivating personally and hence the tenancy of a tenant of land owned by a Deity or Sansthan could not be terminated under section 38 of the Act
We do not propose to express any Opinion as to whether a Manager or Shebait of the properties of an idol or the Manager of a Sansthan can or cannot apply for surrender by a tenant of lands for personal cultivation
It is enough to point out that the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in both the decisions cited above have indicated that a Trustee in whom the properties vest in law stands on a different footing from a Shebait or a Wahiwatdar or Manager
This distinction pointed out by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court has not been properly appreciated by the Revenue Tribunal in the present case
To conclude the appellant the Managing Trustee is a person in whom the legal ownership of the property is vested and as such he was entitled to apply for surrender by the tenant of the lands in question to cultivate personally  under section 38 read with section 212 of the Act
Inasmuch as all the other points on facts have been held in the appellant s favour it follows that this appeal will have to be allowed in consequence the order of the third respondent dated June 29 1963 will stand restored
There will be no order as to costs
RKPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant was the Managing Trustee of a public charitable trust maintaining a Dharamshala
He filed an application under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act XCIX of 1958 before the Naib Tehsildar the third respondent to direct the fourth respondent the tenant to surrender four acres of land on the ground that the lands were required for personal cultivation
According to the appellant the necessary notices terminating the tenancy of the fourth respondent had been given and be was entitled to get pos session of the lands
The tenant raised a legal contention that inasmuch as the lands belonged to the Trust the appellant could not be considered the landlord the trust itself could not cultivate personally  the lands within the meaning of the
Act and therefore the appellant s application was not maintainable
This contention was overruled and the tenant ordered to surrender possession of the land to the appellant
However the tenant 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 Court HELD  The appeal must be allowed and the order of the Naib Tehsildar restored
Under section 218 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act a Trustee has been defined as meaning a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons
the trust property is vested and includes a manager
In view of this definition it is clear that in the present case the properties of the Trust vest in the Managing Trustee the appellant and he is the landlord  under cl
32 of section 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 it a landlord  he can ask for a surrender from the tenant of the lands of the Trust to cultivate personally 
He can cultivate the lands either by his own labour or under the personal supervision of himself by hired labour or by servants as contemplated under sub cls
i or iii of cl
12 of section 2
As the properties vest in him
in law cultivation by him is to be considered on one s own account  444 H 445 C Shri Kalanka Devi Sansthan Patur vs Pandu Maroti 1963 Mh
L J 249 referred to
Buvasaheb vs Yesu Krishna 1960 NLJ 219 and Kesheoraj Deo Sansthan Karanja v Bapurao 1964 Mh
LJ 589
distinguished