1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3697 OF 1998. Laxman Raghunath Galande, deceased through legal heirs. 1-A) Vasant Laxman Galande, age 50 years, occu. agril. r/o Nathupatlachiwadi, Post Pimpalwadi, Tal. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER. (Original Petitioner) VERSUS 1. Smt. Shakuntala Shankarrao Kolse, aged 55 years, occu. household, 2. Smt. Gayabai Narayan Sonwane, aged 53 years, occu. household, 3 Smt. Indumati Vithalrao Bankar, aged 48 occu. household, 4. Savitrabai Radhakrishna Ghadge, aged 45 years, occu. household, Notices to be served on the Power of Attorney holder, Shri Shankarrao Bhaurao Kolse, aged 65 years, occu. agril. r/o Gondegaon, Tal. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri R.L. Kute, Advocate holding for Shri R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri B.V. Wagh, Advocate for Respondents. ... 2 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. RESERVED ON: 19.11.2010. PRONOUNCED ON: 26.11.2010. JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27th January, 1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner in Appeal No.12 of 1992 and confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision No. MRT.AH.III.3/94 (TNC.B.73/94) Pune on 24th April, 1998. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner herein filed revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal No.12/1992. The respondents herein filed application in the trial Court under Section 14, 25(2) and 29 of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, referred to as “the Tenancy Act”) on 16.10.1990. The Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Kopargaon 3 had conducted an inquiry and passed the order that the application is not tenable. Hence, it was rejected on 30th March, 1992. Therefore, the revision was filed by the petitioner herein before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is deemed purchaser on 1.4.1954 and therefore, no rent is payable as demanded by the landlord. The learned Counsel further submitted that the proceedings under Section 32-P of the Tenancy Act are not yet finalized. Therefore, the applications filed under Section 14, 25(2) and 29 of the Tenancy Act are not maintainable. It is further submitted that since the proceedings under Section 32-P of the Tenancy Act are not finalized and also no rent was fixed by the respondents and, therefore, there is no question of paying any rent and further to terminate tenancy of the petitioner. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that since the tenant failed to pay the rent for more than three years, notices were issued and served upon the petitioner and then the tenancy was terminated. It is further submitted that as the rent was not paid from 1971 to 1990 despite notices and the tenant has admitted the default in payment of rent, the proceedings under Section 32-P of the Tenancy Act is pending and not dropped and this Court has confirmed the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directing the Tahsildar to initiate and conclude the proceedings under Section 32-P of the Tenancy Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that since the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal has considered all the points, no interference is warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to the fact that this Court has dismissed Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein, challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal thereby allowing the revision of the respondents giving directions to the Tahsildar to take decision 5 under Section 32-P of the Tenancy Act. 5. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. At the outset, it is necessary to mention herein that the Writ Petition No.3765 of 1991 filed by the petitioner herein challenging the judgment and order dated 24th September, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.MRT/AH/III/2/88 (TNC).B.46/88), is dismissed confirming the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which concluded that it was not open for the Tahsildar as well as the Sub Divisional Officer to take contrary view than the view which was taken by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide its order dated 8th February, 1985 passed in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/III/8/80, by which the prayer of the petitioner herein to purchase suit land as a tenant came to be rejected. Against the order dated 8th February, 1985 passed in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/III/8/80 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, even Writ Petition No.2260 of 1985 filed by the petitioner herein 6 was also dismissed, which attained finality. Therefore, the petitioner herein lost right to purchase suit property. 8. Challenge in this writ petition is only qua the findings of the Sub Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the petitioner did not pay rent though he enjoyed the suit property from 1971 to 90 and, therefore, the tenancy of the petitioner was liable to be terminated on the ground of default. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, I find that the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have recorded findings of fact that the petitioner was defaulter in payment of rent. Nothing has been brought on record to take a different view than the view taken by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. That apart, the petitioner has already lost his right to purchase the suit property since no purchase notice was given by the 7 petitioner within two years after death of Namdeo, who was landlord. 8. Taking overall view of the matter and in view of the fact that this Court has also dismissed Writ Petition No.3765 of 1991 filed by the petitioner, in my opinion, there is no substance in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ..... Kadam. 8 WRIT PETITION NO.3697 OF 1998. 26th NOVEMBER, 2010. For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [Prakash Kadam] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge.