ON Civil Appeal No 786 of 1976
From the Judgment and Order dated 121
1976 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No 873 of 1970
516 PH Parekh for the Appellant
Krishan Kumar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing the appel lant s writ petition made under Article 227 of the Constitu tion of India challenging the validity of the order of the Revenue Courts in dismissing the appellant s suit for evic tion of respondents
Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are the respondents are tenants of agricultural land which had been let out to them by the appellant s predecessors in title
The appellant made applications on behalf of minor Ashok Kumar for the eviction of the respondents on the ground that the agricultural land in dispute was bona fide required by the landlord for his personal cultivation
The appellant pleaded that the land in dispute had been bequeathed to him by his maternal grandmother under a Will and as such he was the landlord of the disputed land entitled to maintain the applications for eviction of the respondents under Section 29 read with Section 3 IA of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricul tural Lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act as applicable to the State of Gujarat
The tenants raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the appellant being a transferee of the land from his maternal grandmother was not entitled to maintain the suit as a landlord under Section 31A of the Act inas much as he had not inherited the property from his ances tors
The Mamlatdar upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the eviction  suit
On appeal the District Deputy Collector upheld the order of the Mamlatdar
The appellant preferred revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad but the same too was dismissed uphold ing the tenants  objection
The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the correctness of the view taken by the Revenue Courts
The High Court by its order dated 121
1976 dismissed the writ petition on the finding that the view taken by the Revenue Courts in upholding the ten ants  objection to the maintainability of the eviction suit was correct
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court
There is no dispute that under Section 31A of the Act a landlord has a right to determine tenancy of agricultural land and to evict the 517 tenant on fulfilling the conditions prescribed therein
The conditions prescribed are that if the landlord has no other land of his own and if he has not been cultivating person ally any other land he is entitled to take possession of the land let out to a tenant to the extent of permissible ceiling area
If the land cultivated by the landlord person ally is less than the ceiling area he is entitled to take possession of so much area of land as would be sufficient to make up the area in his possession to the extent of ceiling area
further the income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to take possession should be the prin cipal source of income for his maintenance
These conditions as laid down in clauses a b and c of Section 31A of the Act must be satisfied for making an application for the eviction of a tenant from agricultural land
In addition to these conditions clause d further prescribes additional conditions which must also be fulfilled by the landlord
Section 31Ad as amended by the Gujarat Act No XVI of 1961 reads as under 31A The right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy for cultivating the land personally under Section 31 shall be subject to the following conditions
a         b         c         d The land leased stands in the record of rights or in any public record or similar revenue record on the 1st day of January 1952 and thereafter during the period between the said date and the appointed day in the name of the landlord himself
or of any of his ancestors but not of any person from whom title is derived whether by assignment or Court sale or otherwise or if the landlord is a member of a joint family in the name of a member of such family
 The above provision primarily requires that the name of the person applying for the eviction of the tenant or of his ancestors should be recorded as landlord in the record of rights on 11
1952 and he should further be recorded as landlord on the appointed day namely 156 1955
Both these conditions are required to be fulfilled before a suit or an application is maintainable by a landlord for the eviction of the tenant
If either of the two conditions are not satisfied the application for eviction of the tenant will not be maintainable
The provision 518 of clause d further provides that even if the landlord s name is not recorded
but if the name of his ancestor is recorded similarly if the landlord is a member of joint family the name of any member is recorded the application would be maintainable
This provision indicates the legisla tive intent that a person succeeding to the property from his ancestor is entitled to maintain the application for eviction of a tenant provided he fulfils other conditions
But a person who may have obtained right to the agricultural land by assignment transfer or by auction sale or in any similar mode is not included within the expression of landlord  entitling him to evict the tenant
Clause d of Section 31A of the Act as it stood before its amendment by the Gujarat Act XVI of 1960 reads as follows The land leased stands in the record of rights or in any public record or similar revenue record on the 1st day of January 1952 and thereafter during the period between the said date and the appointed day in the name of the landlord himself or of any of his ancestors or if the landlord is a member of a joint family in the name of a member of such family
 The above provision before its amendment was interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Waman Ganesh Joshi vs Ganu Guna Khapre 61 Bombay LR 1267
The High Court placing reliance on Khalliulla Hasmiya vs Yesu 50 Bombay LR 201 held that the term landlord  according to clause d of Section 31A of the Act included any person from or through whom he may have derived his title to the land and therefore for proper compliance of the conditions mentioned in clause d of Section 3 IA it is sufficient that either the name of the claimant or his predecessors in title stands in the record of fights during the required period
A Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Bhanushanker Ambalal vs Laxman Kala  Ors 1960 1 Gujarat Law Reporter 169 disagreed with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Warnan Ganesh Joshi s case supra
The Full Bench held that the expression in the name of landlord himself occurring in clause d of Section 3 IA must be read as the landlord individually and not any one claiming through him as a successor in interest therefore a transferee from a landlord in whose name the land is shown to stand cannot fit into the structure of the clause
The Full Bench judgment was rendered on 287
1960 prior to the amendment of the Section by the Gujarat Act XVI of 1960
After the amendment of Section by Gujarat Act XVI of 1960 the Legislature made it clear that transferees and assignees from persons whose name may be appearing in the record of 519 right during the relevant period were not to be treated as landlords for the purposes of the Section
The expression or otherwise  occurring in clause d indicates that a person claiming title by transfer assignment
court sale or in any other mode like gift or will even from ancestor will not be a landlord for the purposes of the Section
The Legislature has clearly laid down that a person inheriting property from his ancestor would be landlord provided his ancestor s name appears in the record of right during the required period
But a person claiming title on the basis of transfer assignment auction sale or otherwise including gift or will from the predecessors in title even though he may be his ancestor and his name may be recorded in the record of rights during the required period will not be entitled to maintain a suit for eviction of a tenant
The Legislature placed this restriction in order to protect the interest of the tenants and to prevent avoidance of the restrictions placed by the ceiling laws
In the absence of any such provision a landlord could transfer land to his descendants by gift or will to evade the ceiling law and to evict tenants
Under Section 31Ad such a beneficiary is not entitled to maintain a suit for the eviction of a tenant from the agricultural holding as he would not be a landlord within the meaning of the Section
In Umraomiya Akbarmiya Malek vs Bhulabhai Mathurbhai Patel  Anr 1965 6 Gujarat Law Reporter 788 the peti tioner therein made application for eviction of tenant claiming to be landlord on the basis of a gift made in his favour by his maternal grand father who was recorded in the record of rights during the required period
The question arose whether the once who had acquired the property under a gift made by his maternal grand father was a landlord within the meaning of clause d of Section 31A
The High Court on an elaborate discussion held that the petitioner therein was not a landlord within the meaning of the Section
A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Appeal No 11263 decided on March 3 1972 considered the question whether a person who obtained the property under a Will from his grand mother was a landlord under clause d of Section 31A of the Act the Division Bench held that having regard to the context the object and scheme of the enactment such a person was not a landlord within the meaning of clause d of Section 31A
The Bench further held that the Legislature intended to restrict the right of landlord to obtain possession for bona fide cultivation purposes and it did not intend to include the case of a landlord who derived title under a Will
We arc in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench
The learned single Judge of the High Court while rendering the impugned judgment followed the view taken by the aforesaid Division 520 Bench
In this view we find no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court
Learned counsel for the appellant referred to certain decisions of the Bombay High Court where contrary view had been taken
Since the interpretation of Section 31Ad of the Act as made by the Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid decision has been the law for the last 25 years
and as that interpretation is justified having regard to the legislative history of the Section we do not consider it necessary to deal with those decisions
The appeal fails and is accord ingly dismissed
but there will be no order as to costs
VPR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant joined the Agricultural Department in 1963 with BSc
Geology
Later in 1979 he was promoted as Senior Geologist
In 1982 he passed his MSc
Geology and stood first in the University
Sometime in 1982 he was also holding additional charge as Deputy Director
In 1983 the State Public Service Commission called for applications for direct recruitment of Deputy Director in the Ground Water Survey and Development Agency
The appel lant applied in response to the said advertisement but was not called for interview on the ground that he did not possess the necessary qualification of 10 years practical experience after acquiring the post graduate degree
Ag grieved the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court contending that educational qualification and experi ence are two independent requirements and have to be read disjunctively and the experience required need not be after possessing basic educational qualification
However the High Court did not agree with the contention and dismissed the Writ Petition
Against the said dismissal the appellant preferred an appeal by special leave which was granted by this Court in 1984 with an observation that the petitioner should not be reverted
However he was reverted to the post of Senior Geologist but subsequently promoted as Deputy Director in a new post created
The appellant s promotion was challenged by one of his colleagues by way of a Writ Petition contend ing that even for promotion 10 years experience posterior to acquisition of post graduate degree was essential
The High Court quashed the promotion of the appellant
The appellant appealed against the said order after obtaining special leave of this Court in 1987
522 During the pendency of these two appeals the State Government amended Rule 31a whereby the requirement of 10 years experience mentioned in sub clause iii was delet ed in respect of appointment by promotion
According to the State Government since the said requirement was redundant it was deleted
Allowing the 1987 appeal and dismissing the 1984 ap peal this Court HELD 11
On the interpretation of Rule 3 of Maharash tra Ground Water Service Class I Recruitment Rules 1976 prior to its amendment the view taken by the High Court on the Writ Petition filed by the appellant does not call for any interference
Normally when one talks of experience unless the context otherwise demands it should be taken as experience after acquiring the minimum qualifications re quired and therefore necessarily will have to posterior to the acquisition of the qualification
However in the case of promotion the same interpretation may not be just or warranted
It would depend on the relevant provisions as also the particular type of experience which is required
336C D 12
The requirement of experience has been omitted by an amendment made on 16th February 1988 and published in the Gazette on 2431988
Though the Rule does not say anything about its retrospective operation there could be no doubt that it is retroactive
This amendment shall be deemed to apply to the present case as well especially when the matter is pending in this Court and the appointment in question is by promotion
It is true that at the time when the appellant was promoted the Rule had not been amended
However the appellant is the senior most among the Senior Geologists and even if he is to be considered again under the amended rules he shall have to be appointed and nothing is stated in these proceedings which would disqualify him even now
336E F