1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4006 OF 2009 Shri Maruti Bhau Gajarkar and ors .. Petitioners Vs Mrs Sushila Shrikant Saware and ors .. Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ganesh Gole, for the Respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 11/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai and the Sub Divisional Officer, Gadhingalaj in the proceedings arising from the application filed by respondent no.1 under section 43-1D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. By the impugned orders, the application filed by respondent no.1 stands allowed. Mr Bandiwadekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenged the impugned orders on two grounds. Firstly, the application under section 43-1D of the T 2 B.T. & A.L. Act itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that the deceased-landlord was not a member of the Armed Forces on the date when he became the owner of the land, i.e. 1.6.1963 and secondly, he submitted that the application filed by respondent no.1 under section 43-1D of the B.T. & A. L. Act was not maintainable since she, being the daughter of the original landlord, does not fall within the definition of Landlord. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, it deserves to be rejected outright. It appears that in the earlier round of litigation the deceased-landlord had filed Special Civil Application No.1258 of 1977 in this court challenging the orders passed by the Collector of Kolhapur dated 23.12.1976 and the order passed by the Addl.Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune dated 26.4.1977. The said Special Civil Application was allowed observing that the respondent-landlord was in the Armed Forces till 1976. Moreover, the record shows that he resigned as a member of the Armed Forces in 1976. Hence, the first ground of challenge is rejected. Insofar as the second ground of challenge is concerned, it is an admitted fact that respondent no.1, being the sole legal heir and representative of the deceased-landlord, inherited the suit property under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In other words, after the death of her father, she stepped into his shoes and, therefore, the application 3 filed by her under section 43-1D of B.T. & A.L. Act, was deemed to be the application by her father, who was member of the Armed Forces.Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the second ground of challenge was not raised before any of the tenancy authorities which passed the orders impugned in this petition. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. The prayer made by Mr Bandiwadekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, to continue the order of status-quo, in view of the subsequent events, is rejected. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 24.08.09