1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3058 OF 2011 (Madhukar S. Behare vs. Mrs. Mandabai Ashok Masarkar) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P.P. Kotwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 1, 2011 This petition takes exception to the order dated 14/1/2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha whereby the application (Exh. 25) filed by the petitioner for referring the issue of tenancy to the competent Authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act came to be rejected. The petitioner herein is a defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 116/2008, which has been filed by the respondent herein for possession, declaration and enquiry into mesne profit in respect 2 of land bearing Survey No.482/1 admeasuring 2.50 hectares, which is an occupancy Class II land. Specific averment in the plaint is that it was orally agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that if permission to sell is not granted by the Authorities, the defendant would perform the agricultural operations over the suit field for a period of two years, i.e. till April 2006 at the rate of Rs.25,000/- Makta per year (i.e. towards using the field and getting profit from the yield) and the amount of earnest money would be adjusted towards the same. In the written statement filed by the petitioner herein, it was the contention of the petitioner that he has been cultivating the field for the last two years and, therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the defence of the petitioner herein, the issue ought to be referred to the competent Authority under the said Act. The trial Court considering the fact that both the plaintiff and defendant were not claiming any tenancy agreement and merely because the word `Makta’ was used, it could not be inferred that there 3 was relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties and since neither party was claiming such relationship, did not deem it fit to refer the issue to the competent Authority under the said Act. Considering the averments in the plaint, as well as defence of the petitioner herein, who is defendant in the said suit, the order passed by the trial Court, in my view, does not suffer from any infirmity or error warranting interference of this Court in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj