H.K. Chainani, C.J.
1. In this case opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, had been granted a certificate under Section 88C(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, stating that his income does not exceed Rs. 1,500 a year. In arriving at the finding that the opponent's income did not exceed Rs. 1,500, the Prant Officer did not take into consideration the income realised by the opponent's sons, who are now all in service and are serving at different places. Mr. Divekar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, has contended that the Prant Officer was wrong in not taking into consideration the salaries, which the sons of the opponent were getting We do not think that we can accept this argument. Sub-section (1) of Section 88C provides that
Nothing in Sections 32 to 32R...shall apply to lands leased by any person if...the total annual income of such person...does not exceed Rs. 1,500.
The income, which is to be taken into consideration for purposes of Section 88C, is the income of the person who had leased the land. The word 'person' includes a joint family (see Clause (11) of Section 2 of the Act). If the lease is on behalf of the joint family, then the income of the joint family should be taken into consideration. In this case, we do not know whether the land belonged to the opponent alone or whether it belonged to the joint family consisting of himself and his sons. If it belonged to him alone, then for the purposes of Section 88C, only his income was material and he could be granted a certificate, in case his individual income did not exceed Rs. 1,500. If, on the other hand, the land belonged to the joint family, then we must take into consideration the income of the joint family. Income realised by a member of the joint family from his service would not ordinarily be the income of the joint family, unless it is thrown in the common stock or is blended with the other property of the joint family. There is no clear evidence on the point in this case. Consequently, the Prant Officer was right in not including the salaries received by the sons of the opponent, while determining the income of the opponent.
2. The Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.