: 1 : IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6909 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6909 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6909 OF 2008 Indrabai Appa Bailbhinge & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Jayant Bhagwant Deshpande & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Macchindra Patil i/b. Mrs.Sunita Patil for the Petitioners. . Mr.N.V. Walawalkar i/b. Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 11. . Mr.Ditendra Mishra for Respondent Nos.27 to 31. . Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.32 to 34. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2008. : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2008. : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Petition challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 25th August, 2008. By this order a Revision Application filed by some of the heirs of Tayappa Bailbhinge was dismissed. 2. The Petitioner No.1 is the wife of Appa who was the son of Tayappa. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the daughters of Tayappa. The Revision Application was filed by the sons of the Appa claiming that they were entitled to possession of the lands as tenants in cultivation of the lands. The petitioners contend that : 2 : they became aware of the order passed directing that possession of the lands should be taken from them only after a notice was issued by the authorities for executing the order of Tenancy Awal Karkun. 3. A Suit has been filed by the Petitioners before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangola. A temporary injunction was granted to the petitioners on 30th April, 2004. However, the Suit has been dismissed for default. Thereafter, an application for restoration of the Suit has been made. In the meantime, the respondent-landlords, who have obtained orders for evicting the occupants on their lands i.e. Tayappa’s heirs, sought to execute the orders against which the petitioners have filed the present Petition. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had no notice of any proceedings filed before any Court by the landlords. Therefore, they had no opportunity to demonstrate that Tayappa was a tenant of the suit lands and that they were entitled to continue their possession of the lands as heirs of Tayappa. It is submitted that the rights of the petitioners cannot be abrogated without hearing them. : 3 : 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that Tayappa died in 1973. He had not filed any proceedings to declare himself as a tenant. Appa, the son of Tayappa died in 1986. He too had not filed any proceedings to claim tenancy. In 1989 the landlords preferred an application under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for evicting the heirs of Tayappa. The petitioners did not at any point of time during those proceedings or in any later proceedings emerging from those proceedings ever contend that they were necessary parties and were entitled to be heard. 6. In my opinion, the Petitioners cannot now claim that they have a right to be heard as they were tenants of the property i.e. the suit lands. This is because it has been already held by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, whose order has been confirmed right upto the Supreme Court, that Tayappa was not a tenant. Once it has been so held, the petitioners cannot contend that they ought to be heard and be permitted to establish that Tayappa was a tenant and consequently their right as tenants. The petitioners are not staking their claim as tenants in their individual capacities but are claiming this status only through Tayappa. If Tayappa himself was not a tenant, then the petitioners cannot have any : 4 : better right than Tayappa. 7. The Petition is rejected. 8. The application for restoration of the Suit which has been filed will be heard on its own merits.