:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 64 OF 1991 1. Shri Laxman Pandu Salunke (Chor) and ors. ..Applicants (Org.Respdts.) Vs. Shri Mandu Pandu Salunke(Chor) since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives: 1A. Shri Nivrutti Mandu Salunke and ors. ..Respondents (Org.Appellants) Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh for applicants. Mr. V.V. Pai for respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. Date Date Date : June 18, 2008. : June 18, 2008. : June 18, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the applicants-original respondents in Second Appeal No. 64 of 1991. He prays in this application for returning the R & P in Tenancy Revision Application No. 177 of 2003 to be decided by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune, which has been recently reconstituted by the State Government. 2. It is pertinent to note that as per the order :2: passed by this court on 29/1/2001 the issue of tenancy under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 came to be decided in Tenancy Case No. 3 of 2001 by the Tahsildar at Bhor, District Pune on 28/2/2003. The said decision was challenged in Tenancy Appeal No. 9 of 2003 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhor and the same was allowed on 10/11/2003. The present applicants, therefore, filed Tenancy Revision Application No. 177 of 2003 and it was pending before the Divisional Commissioner who was not empowered to hear and decide the revision application in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court. Both the parties had, therefore, agreed to call for the entire R & P in all these three cases so as to decide the Second Appeal i.e. S.A. No. 64 of 1991. Though the said appeal was directed to be listed for final hearing from time to time, it could not reach finally before the appropriate benches and Mr. Konde-Deshmukh states that the present applicant no.1 has crossed the age of 100 years. 3. Undoubtedly, unless the issue of tenancy is decided and it receives its finality by the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural :3: Lands Act, 1948, the substantial questions of law framed while admitting the Second Appeal cannot be adjudicated upon and having regards to this legal position, Mr. Konde-Deshmukh prayed for returning the R & P in Tenancy Revision Application No. 177 of 2003 so that the recently established MRT hears the same. He further prays for directions to the MRT to hear and decide the Revision Application within a fixed period. 4. A Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 944 of 2008 has directed the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to hold its sitting for 15 days in a month at Pune with effect from 1/7/2008. However, both the counsel agreed that on remand, the Tenancy Revision Application No. 177 of 2003 can be heard by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal either at Mumbai or at Pune. 5. Hence, the registry is directed to return the R & P in Tenancy Revision Application No. 177 of 2003 forthwith to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Mumbai. The parties will appear before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Mumbai on 30/6/2008 and the Tribunal in turn will fix the next date in its :4: sitting at Mumbai or at Pune as per the convenience /consent of the parties concerned. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall decide the Tenancy Revision Application No. 177 of 2003 as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31/8/2008. The findings of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall be submitted to the Registrar (Judicial) so as to be taken on record in Second Appeal No. 64 of 1991. 6. Civil Application is disposed off in terms of the above directions. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)