Summarize the following court judgment. 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 Maroti(1)	 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 19(1)(f)	 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) (1963)Mh. L.J.249. (2) (1960) N.L.J 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 36(1) 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 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 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 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 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 Bapurao(2). In (1) (1960) N.L.J.219. (2) (1964) Mh. L.J. 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 2(12) 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 2(12)	 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. R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed.

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 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 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) N.L.J. 219 and Kesheoraj Deo Sansthan Karanja v Bapurao	 (1964) Mh. L.J. 589. distinguished.