JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 09.01.1997 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the review petition filed against the same.

3. These appeals arise under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. On what is described as Tillers day i.e. 01.04.1957, the landlord was a minor. The controversy, which we are called upon to resolve, is whether the appellant is a deemed purchaser within the meaning of Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Act or whether this is a case under Section 32F of the Act under which the tenant is obliged to give a notice under Section 32F(1A).

4. To appreciate the question which arises before us, it is necessary we should first set out the facts according to the appellant which are related to the impugned order.

5. It is the case of the appellant that the first respondent – landlord claimed that he had attained majority on 10.09.1966 and filed an application bearing Tenancy