Case: Ishwardas Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal &amp; Ors

for possession of the land, under Section 36 (1) of the Act.11. 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 appellants 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 ones 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 1 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.12. 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 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 Clause (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-clause (i) or (iii) of Clause (12) of Section 2 As the properties vest in him, in law, cultivation, by him, as indicated above is to be considered on ones own account. Thus the requirements of Section 38 (1), read with Section 2 (12) 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 appellants claim, is correct.13. In our opinion, the decision of the Bombay High Court, in Buvashebs case, 1960 Nag LJ 219, 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 2 (6), 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 proparty, 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 vast, 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 IXVII of 1948, are stantially similar to the definitions contained in the Act.14. We may also refer to a later decision of the Bombay High Court in Kesheoraj Deo Sansthan, Karanja Bapurao, 1964 Mah LJ 589. In the 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, though a agency, like a Manager, on behalf of juristic person, did not come within the ambit of the definition to cultivate personally, in Section 2(12) of the Act. They also held that an idol or a juridical person, like the Sansthan, was not capable of cultivating personally, an hence the tenancy of a tenancy of land, owned by a Deity or Sansthan, could not be terminated, under Section 88 of the Act.15. 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.16. 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 cu1tivate personally, under Section 38, read with Section 2 (12) of the Act.17.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In our opinion, the decision of the Bombay High Court, in Buvashebs case, 1960 Nag LJ 219, 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 2 (6), 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 proparty, 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 vast, 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 IXVII of 1948, are stantially 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 Bapurao, 1964 Mah LJ 589. In the 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, though a agency, like a Manager, on behalf of juristic person, did not come within the ambit of the definition to cultivate personally, in Section 2(12) of the Act. They also held that an idol or a juridical person, like the Sansthan, was not capable of cultivating personally, an hence the tenancy of a tenancy of land, owned by a Deity or Sansthan, could not be terminated, under Section 88 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 cu1tivate personally, under Section 38, read with Section 2 (12) of the Act.