JUGDMENT - BHIMRAO N. NAIK J. :---This is a petition under Article 227 filed by the tenants challenging the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Junnar Sub Division, Khed on 10th June 1977 whereby their application under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) is rejected. This order passed by the Assistant Collector was confirmed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in MRT. VIII-4/77 (TNC-B-290/77).

2. Few facts which are relevant for the purpose of this petition are as follows:

One Vithoba Rama Rahane was the tenant of 9 pieces of land, namely ; 721/3, 721/5, 725/3B, 231/2B, 720/1, 721/1, 732/1, 333/2 and 744/2B. The proceedings under section 32G were initiated some time in the year 1962 and on 5th August 1962 the statement of petitioner No. 1 was recorded. He expressed his unwillingness to purchase 5 pieces of land out of 9 pieces of land, being Survey Nos. 720/1, 721/1, 732/1, 333/2 and 744/2B. The order under section 32G and 32P appears to have been passed on the same day, that is, on 5th August 1962. Even the possession of the five pieces of lands mentioned above was taken by the respondent-landlords. It is important to note that the subject matter of dispute under section 32G was only these five lands and Survey Nos. 725/3B, 731/2B, 721/3 and 721/5. Notwithstanding this, it appears that, which is not in dispute, the petitioners were unauthorisedly dispossessed of the remaining four lands on 5th August 1962, which are subject matter of this petition.

3. Thereafter it appears that some time in the year 1964 the proceedings under section 32-1B were initiated. However, on 24th June 1972 the proceeding under section 32-1B were dismissed because it was observed that since the tenants were in possession on 1-4-1957 the question of going ahead with proceedings under section 32-1B does not arise. These proceedings will not have any bearing on the decision of the present petition.

4. It also appears, simultaneously when the proceedings under section 32-1B were pending the respondent landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 69 of 67 for injunction against the present petitioners and in those proceedings the issue of tenancy was framed because of the specific contentions raised by petitioner No. 2, namely; does defendant No. 2 (the present petitioner No. 2) show that he had been a tenant and deemed purchaser of the suit land. On reference petitioner No. 2 succeeded in getting the declaration that he is a tenant of the suit lands as on 1-4-1957.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said decision the respondent landlord filed Tenancy Appeal No. 88 of 1968 which appeal was allowed and it was held that petitioner No. 2 was not a tenant. Being aggrieved by this order of the S.D.O. a revision application being MRT-P-IV-53/69 was filed by the present petitioner which was also rejected, on 27th April 1970. Thus a finding was recorded that petitioner No. 2 was not the tenant and a deemed purchaser of the suit lands.

6. Thereafter an application under section 84 of the Act was filed by the present petitioner on 1st October 1973 for summary eviction of the respondent landlords. This application was filed before the Assistant Collector, Junnar Sub Division. The learned Assistant Collector dismissed the application by his judgment and order dated 10th June 1977. He placed reliance upon the earlier decision under section 32G and since no appeal was filed against those orders held that the proceedings were binding upon the petitioners and that the application under section 84 is not maintainable and that the proper remedy was to file an application under section 29.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector, Junnar Revision Application No. MRT/P/VIII/4/77 was filed by the present petitioners. The learned member took the view that the only course open to the tenant was to file an application under section 29(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document