-: 1 :- wp- 4828/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4828 OF 2010 Jasbir Singh Bhullar. ..Petitioner. Versus Shyam Ahuja& Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. B. Amin for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Chavan i/b M/s. Dave & Co., for respondent no.1. Ms. Mukta Gobse for respondent no.2. Mr. Suresh N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos. 4 & 5. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 6, 2010. P. C. : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the name of respondent no.3 from the array of parties. Leave is granted. Name of respondent no.3 is deleted from the petition at the risk of petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Rule. 3. By consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and petition is taken up for hearing. 4. The dispute is about land bearing Survey No. 31 Hissa No. 8 admeasuring 29 gunthas situated at village Erangal, taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District. [hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the suit land”]. The following are the undisputed facts. That, Motiram Chimanya Mhatre was the owner of the suit land. srp -: 2 :- wp- 4828/10 In the year 1966, he sold the suit land to one Smt. Indu Matai and in the year 1968 she sold the suit land under a sale deed to respondent no.1. Respondent no.2’s father and after his demise, respondent no.2 claim tenancy in respect of the suit land. Respondent no.2 initiated proceedings under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short “the said Act”]. This proceeding was initiated against respondent no.1. Tehsildar gave declaration that respondent no. 2 is a tenant in the suit land. In pursuance of this finding, respondent no.2 filed proceeding for fixation of purchase price under section 32-G of the said Act against respondent no.3. Tehsildar and ALT accordingly fixed the purchase price. This order is not challenged by anyone and has become final. However, by filing an appeal before SDO, respondent no.1 challenged the order of Tehsildar granting declaration under section 70(b) of the said Act. Respondent no.1 could not succeed there and therefore he filed revision before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal [MRT] under section 76 of the said Act. Respondent no.2 in the meanwhile obtained permission under section 43 of the said Act from the competent authority and sold the suit land to the petitioner by sale deed dated 26th November 2005. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed an application at Exhibit-A in 1st respondent revision pending before MRT for impleadment on the ground -: 3 :- wp- 4828/10 that he has acquired title to the suit land. This application was opposed by respondent no.1 and MRT by the order impugned in this writ petition, has rejected petitioner’s application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent o.2 purchased the suit land in a proceeding under section 32-G and thereafter the petitioner has purchased the suit land from respondent no. 2 after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority under section 43 of the said Act. The petitioner has vital interest in the suit land and therefore he is necessary and proper party to the revision. Respondent no.1, on the contrary, supported the impugned order by submitting that the presence of petitioner is not required for disposal of the revision pending before MRT. He further submitted that the relevant issue which is required to be determined is whether respondent no.2 as well as his predecessor-in-title were/are tenant in the suit land, and to decide this issue, presence of the petitioner is not necessary. He also submitted that the issue of the petitioner's alleged title to the suit land cannot be gone into by MRT in pending revision. He lastly submitted that the petition is without any substance and thus liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order, in my opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable. Admittedly, respondent -: 4 :- wp- 4828/10 no.1 claims title to the suit land through landlord, i.e., predecessor in title of respondent no.3. The petitioner claims title to the suit land through tenant. The issue of title of petitioner or respondent no.1 cannot be gone into by the revenue tribunal. The matter in issue before the MRT, is whether respondent no.2 is entitled for declaration of his status as “tenant” under section 70(b) of the said Act. However, it is important to note that the landlord as well as the tenant have sold the suit land to respondent no.1 and petitioner respectively and therefore they may not be interested in the outcome of revision. The litigation is being fought by respondent no.1 and the petitioner. 8. At this juncture, it will be relevant to advert to the decision of Supreme Court in Sumatibai & Others v. Paras Finance Co., reported in AIR-2007 SC 3166. The Supreme Court in Sumatibai (supra) has distinguished another decision of three judges bench in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and ors reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733 and held that if the third party or stranger who has semblance of title in the property in dispute, he can be impleaded in a suit for specific performance. I find no reason why this decision of the Supreme Court should not be made applicable to the present case especially when the petitioner has purchased the property from respondent no.2 by a registered sale deed after complying the formalities under section 43 of the said Act. In my -: 5 :- wp- 4828/10 view, the petitioner, in view of his interest in the suit land, is entitled to support the orders of Tehsildar and SDO, which is subject matter before the MRT. In these circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, petition is disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (1) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. (2) Petitioner’s application at Exhibit-A in TNC REV. No. 34/B/2002 is allowed. (3) Rule is made absolute accordingly. (4) It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order shall not influence the MRT and MRT shall decide the respondent no.1’s revision independently, on its own merits after hearing both sides. (5) Since the parties are litigating 1983, MRT is requested to decide the revision of respondent no.1 as expeditiously as possible. (R.V. MORE, J.)