VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THAT the appellants tenants were leased out agricultural land by the respondent landlord for cultivation of sugarcane on an annual rent of Rs. l80/-p. a. That in pursuance of an earlier litigation between the parties, which related to the year 1956, about 8 acres 30 gts. of land was restored to the landlord in the year 1960. That the respondent landlord had filed an application under sections 14, 25, 29 and 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for recovery of possession of the lands which were in possession of the appellants tenants. An enquiry was conducted by the Tenancy awal Karkun, Kopargaon and by order dated 21-9-1996, the Tenancy AK directed the appellant to restore possession of the lands to the landlord under section 43-A of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 r/ w the Notification issued thereunder. That against the order passed by the Tenancy A. K. , the appellants tenants preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kopargaon which was also dismissed on 19-7-1997. The revision application came to be filed by the appellants tenants against the order of the sub-Divisional Officer, Kopargaon and the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by its order dated 29-12-1998, dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Tenancy A. K. and the sub-Divisional Officer, Kopargaon. That being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tenancy A. K. , Sub-Divisional Officer, kopargaon and the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, the appellants tenants preferred a writ petition before this Court, which came to be numbered as Writ Petition no. 3524 of 1998. The learned Single judge, by order dated 8-9-1998 was pleased to reject the writ petition as the learned Single judge found that there was no substance in the same.

( 2 ) THE appellants tenants had contended before the Tenancy A. K. as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer and the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the landlord had earlier applied in the year 1956 for possession of the land for personal cultivation and hence the present proceedings before the Tenancy A. K. were not maintainable under section 31-C of the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act 1948. It was further pleaded on behalf of the appellants that in these proceedings, the landlord had applied for possession of the suit land for personal cultivation but he had failed to prove the bonafide requirement for seeking the possession. It was further pleaded by the appellants tenants that the area of the land in possession of the respondent was more than the land involved in the present proceedings and hence the application, as filed, was not maintainable. The appellants tenants had further pleaded that the landlord had not proved compelling necessity for the resumption of possession of the lands in dispute. The learned Tenancy A. K. , after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the tenant had failed to prove that the respondent landlord had earlier initiated proceedings against the tenants under section 31 of the Tenancy Act for personal cultivation. The Tenancy A. K. further held that the tenants had not produced the certified copies or any record in respect of the earlier proceedings to show that in the year 1960, the landlord had secured possession of 8 acres of land for personal cultivation. In fact, it was the case of the respondent landlord that in or about the year 1958, the tenants had surrendered about 8 acres of land and a mutation entry in favour of the landlord resulted in view of the surrender of 8 acres of land by the tenants to the landlord. The tenancy A. K. further observed that though sufficient time was granted to the appellants tenants, no documents were placed by the tenants on record to show that the landlord had terminated the tenancy of the appellants in respect of 8 acres of land for personal cultivation. It was, therefore, held that section 31-C of the Tenancy Act, on