Deemed tenancy for lawful cultivation and Article 227 correction upheld where possession was taken contrary to tenancy law.

A person lawfully cultivating agricultural land under a mortgagee in possession can qualify as a deemed tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, because the statutory protection extends beyond contractual tenancy and depends on lawful cultivation unless specifically excluded. The Court also held that possession obtained without an order of the Mamlatdar, contrary to Section 29(2), involved a jurisdictional error, so supervisory interference under Article 227 was justified. The result was that the respondent's deemed tenancy was upheld and the High Court's intervention was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person inducted by a mortgagee in possession and lawfully cultivating the land could be treated as a deemed tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; (ii) whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution when possession had been obtained in violation of Section 29(2) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether a person inducted by a mortgagee in possession and lawfully cultivating the land could be treated as a deemed tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Analysis: The definition of tenant in the Act extended beyond contractual tenants. Section 4 conferred deemed tenancy on a person lawfully cultivating land belonging to another, subject only to the stated exclusions. The requirement was lawful cultivation, not direct authority from the owner. A tenant inducted by a mortgagee in possession was not covered by the exclusion for mortgagees in possession, and the protective purpose of the Act supported a broad construction in favour of persons cultivating agricultural land.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to be treated as a deemed tenant under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution when possession had been obtained in violation of Section 29(2) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 29(2) prohibited a landlord from obtaining possession except under an order of the Mamlatdar. The appellants had taken possession in execution of the compromise award without such an order, and the revenue authorities refused relief despite the statutory bar. That refusal involved a jurisdictional error, making supervisory correction appropriate under Article 227.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to interfere under Article 227.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the respondent's protection as a deemed tenant was upheld and the High Court's supervisory intervention was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a tenancy statute enacted for agrarian protection, a person lawfully cultivating another's land is a deemed tenant unless expressly excluded, even if the authority to cultivate is derived from a mortgagee in possession rather than directly from the owner.

---