1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6056 OF 2001 Shri Namdeo Babu Jarande & Anr. : Petitioners (Orig. Applicants) V/s. Smt. Anjanabai Sakharam Badadhe (deceased) & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.S.A. Joshi for the petitioners. Mr.P.B.Shah for respondent nos.2 to 6. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. March 17, 2005. P.C.: 1. The petitioners’ father was a tenant of land bearing gat no.1051 which was originally owned by the mother-in-law of respondent no.1 Krushnabai, who was the widow. After 1.4.1957, the tiller’s day was postponed due to the fact Krushnabai was a widow. Krushnabai left behind respondent no.1 who was also a widow and, therefore, the tiller’s day was further postponed. The original tenant died leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs. Respondent no.1 filed an application for eviction of the petitioners from the suit land on the ground of need for personal cultivation before the Tahsildar. 2. By an order dated 30.12.1994, the Tahsildar rejected the application. The widow Anjanabai preferred a tenancy appeal. Thereafter, there were several stages of 2 litigation which it is not necessary to refer to. In the meanwhile, it appears that some dispute also arose regarding the succession of the land on the part of the respondents. That, however, is something with which the petitioners have no legal interest in. Eventually, the Maharashra Revenue Tribunal has considered the application filed by the petitioners against the decision of the Sub-Divsiional Officer, Bhor, in Tenancy Appeal no.5 of 1995. By order dated 15.9.1998, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal of the respondent landlady and set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 30.12.1994 by which the Tahsildar has dismissed the landlady’s application for possession. The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal after going through the entire record of the case and having considered the matter has come to the conclusion that the petitioners do not have a right to resist the possession of the land by the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioners did not give any notice in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act within one year of 3.12.1982 i.e. the date of death of the landlady. The petitioners have thus not given any notice to the landlady expressing their intention to purchase the land. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 3. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. 3 Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J.