1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5457 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. V.S.Sawant i/b Mr R.B.Parab, for the petitioner. Mr Amit Borkar, for respondent nos 1 and 2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 09/11/2009 PC: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, by which Tenancy Revision No.77 of 2003 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. All the three authorities are against the petitioner. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that permission under section 43 of the B.T. & A.L Act dated 2.6.1998, was granted subject to T 2 the condition that sale transaction should be completed within a period of three months from the date of the order. According to Mr Sawant, the permission was granted vide order dated 2.6.1998, whereas the transaction was executed on 24.12.1998 and since the transaction/sale deed was executed beyond the period of three months, it is illegal. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the Judgment of this court in Shrish Govind Gangakhedkar Vs Maroti Narayan Gaikwad, 2003 (3) Mh.L.J.587. I have perused the impugned orders, so also the Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the judgment relied upon by Mr Sawant has no application to the facts of the present case. I have perused the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In paragraph 5 of the Judgment, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has clearly observed that by the order dated 3 24.12.1998 passed by the SDO, Ichalkaranji in Tenancy permission Case No. SP/11/1998, the condition imposed under section 43 had been relaxed and with the permission of the SDO on 24.12.1998, respondent no.2 sold the land to respondent no.1. Mr Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner, could not and did not produce anything on record to show that this observation is factually incorrect. This observation clearly shows that the condition of three months had been relaxed vide order dated 24.12.1998 by the SDO. In the circumstances, I find no force in the submissions advanced by Mr Sawant. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) 4