1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2547 OF 1992 Dagadu Maruti Kumbhar .. Petitioner Vs. Smt. Gojabai Nana Varute Deceased- through her Heirs- Rajaram Nana Varute and others .. Respondents Mr. D. S. Sawant with Mr. R. P. Walvekar for the petitioner. Mr. P. D. Dalvi for the Respondents 2 to 7 CORAM: SHRI R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8 th FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sawant appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Dalvi for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a landlord in respect of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 927/2, more particularly described in the order dated 29 th April, 1987 passed 2 in Tenancy Case No.69 of 1973 by the Tenancy Aval Karkun (Hereinafter refered to as the saidland). 3. The petitioner had filed an application against the original tenant Nana Sakharam Varute for fixing of reasonable rent in regard to the said land. During the pendancy of the said application, the original Tenant Nana expired and hence his heirs were brought on record and his heirs have contested the said application. 4. The tenancy Awal Kark\un heard the said application and by order dated 9 th April, 1985 came to the conclusion that reasonable rent in respect of the said land should be fixed at Rs.1097.75. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 40 of 1985 before the Assistant Collector, Karvir Division, Kolhapur. The Assistant Collector, by the judgement and order dated 6 th June, 1988, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun is required to be confirmed. 5. It must be mentioned that the tenants namely 3 Gangabai Nana Varute and others have also filed Tenancy Appeal No. 77 of 1985 against the order dated 9 th April, 1985 as mentioned aforesaid. That appeal also came to be dismissed. In sum and substance, the order of fixation of reasonable rent at Rs.1097.75 was confirmed. 6. Against the order dated 6 th June, 1988, the petitioner- landlord filed Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal being MRT-KP-107/88 (Tnc.B107/88). Learned member of the Maharashtra Tribunal, by his order dated 31 st January, 1992 dismissed the revision, that is to say, the reasonable rent fixed @ Rs.1097.75 came to be confirmed. 7. Before this court, the learned Advocate Shri Sawant appearing on behalf of the petitioner Landlord drew my attention to para 5 of the order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and submitted that the rent ought to have been fixed by arriving at the calculation as suggested by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. According to him, the authorities below erred in appreciating the manner in which the rent is to be 4 calculated and this is how the mistake has crept in and hence the the appeal was decided against the petitioner. According to the learned Advocate Mr. Sawant the observation of the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal as stated in para 6 are erroneous and according to him the basic figure at Rs.3200 per year on the basis of yield ought to have been fixed and thereafter further calculation should have been done. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Dalvi appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the Tenancy Awal Karkun has fixed the figure 1097.75 based on the yield and price notification published in the year 1972-73 and there was no mistake on the part of Tenancy Awal Karkun. 9. Having perused the judgement referred above and in particular the judgement of in Tenancy Case No. 69 of 1973 dated 9 th April, 1985 it is seen that the yield and price notification published in the year 1972-73 was taken into consideration by the Tenancy Awal Karkun and based on that, rent at Rs.1097.75 was fixed. Looking to the formula, referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the formula 5 which is applied by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, it is clear that there is no mistake in the application of formula. The only difference as can be observed between the order passed passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun and submission of learned Advocate Mr. Sawant is as regards the fixing price based on yield and price notification of a different year. In the present order, rent Rs.1097-75 was fixed on the basis of yield and price notification published in the year 1972-73 because the application was filed in January, 1973. Learned Advocate Mr. Sawant has not disputed the various figures mentioned in the order date 9 th April, 1985 arrived at on the basis of yield & price notification published in the year 1972-73. Therefore, there is no mistake in the figures as well as formula. If this be so, the figure arrived at by the Tenancy Awal Karkun is not defective and therefore, there is no need to interfere in the said order and the calculation arrived at. 10. On perusing the record, it appears that the authorities concerned were made to fix reasonable rent for the year 1972-73 and that is how the yield and price notification for the relevant year was used. Hence the rent namely Rs.1097.75 6 is based on the figures which were available for the year 1973-74 and there is no mistake in respect in the fixation of rent. If this is the position, no fault can be found in the order dated 9 th April, 1985 passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations, the petition fails and the same is required to be dismissed. 12. The petition is dismissed and the rule is accordingly discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R. Y. GANOO, J. ) jpc/-