The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proper intimation by the landlord or a person lawfully authorized to give such intimation under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner is challenging order passed by the authorities below whereby the petitioner’s application for possession of the land which he has filed under section 29 read with section 14 and section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “B.T. & A.L. Act”) was rejected.

3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:

4. The Petitioner is a landlord of the suit land and respondents are tenants. The disputed property pertains to land bearing Survey No.12 admeasuring 34 Acres 25 Gunthas and it was renumbered after consolidation as Gat No.28/1. The original landlord Shri Yeshwant Kulkarni died in 1940, leaving behind his wife Annapurnabai Y. Kulkarni who became the absolute owner of the said property. The landlord did not have any issue from the said wife. On 07/10/1947, Annapurnabai adopted Shripad, son of Narsinha Pralhad Kulkarni i.e the petitioner herein. In 1948, original respondent was put in possession of the suit property as a tenant by Annapurnabai by executing registered rent note at agreed rent of Rs 300/per month. At that time, the petitioner herein was a minor. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24/08/1959, notice was issued to the original respondent by natural brother of the petitioner viz. Shamrao Kulkarni and rent was demanded for the period 195859. It is the case of the Petitioner that, again, by notice dated 05/08/1961, Shamrao, natural brother of the petitioner demanded rent for the period of 196061. In the meantime, on 02/06/1962, petitioner attained the age of majority. On 15/08/1962, again, notice was issued by Shamrao to the original respondent, demanding rent for the period of 196162. Thereafter, again, notice of termination was issued on 20/11/1962 by Shamrao to the original respondent for and on behalf of the petitoner as a power of attorney holder of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 01/06/1963, application was filed by the petitioner under section 14 of the B.T. & A.L. Act before the Mamlatdar, Taluka North Solapur for recovery of possession of the said land. In the said application, statement of Annapurnabai, mother of the petitioner, was recorded in which it is stated that she has received rent from the respondent and that she had issued rent receipts for the same. Both parties adduced other evidence on record. The Mamlatdar was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner by judgment and order dated 17/06/1966.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal on 24/06/1968 vide Tenancy Appeal No.342 of 1967 and the Collector was pleased to remand the matter back to Mamlatdar. Thereafter, the matter was heard again and the Mamlatdar directed the original respondent to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, and accordingly the original respondent deposited an amount of Rs 3,800/towards the rent from 1963 onwards. Thereafter, again, by order dated 22/07/1975, Mamlatdar was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No.11 of 1976 which was also dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Solapur by order dated 09/03/1977. Against this order, petitioner preferred a revision before the MRT, Pune which was also dismissed by order dated 02/02/1984. Against the said orders, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

6. This writ petition was heard by S.S. Nijjar, J. when the Counsel for the original respondent did not appear and the matter was heard and by order dated 21/09/1986, the Court was pleased to allow the writ petition. Review application filed by the original respondent was also rejected. The SLP was preferred by respondents in the Apex Court which was allowed and the judgment and order passed by this Court was set aside by the order dated 06/04/2004 passed in Civil Appeal No