1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. N.J. Patil, Advocate for Respondents. In this Petition following order was passed on 20/3/2003.

“The issue referred by the Civil Court to the Tenancy Court was, “What is the reasonable rent of the suit land?” On the basis of evidence on record, the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Panhala held that the reasonable rent of the suit land was Rs. 600/-for the year 1975-76. The Appeal Court i.e. Sub Divisional Officer maintained the said finding. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not appreciate the nature of issue before the Tenancy Court and the finding recorded on that issue and in a very cryptic manner the orders of the tenancy Courts below were set aside and fresh enquiry was ordered which was not justified.

2. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause why writ petition be not admitted and disposed of at motion hearing stage itself. Notice is made returnable after four weeks. Hamdast granted.”

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. In RCS No. 97 of 1978 which is filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents for recovery of rent, one of the issues which were framed was “What is the reasonable rent of the suit land?”. Since the concept of reasonable rent is referable to section 43(B) of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948 and since the Mamalatdar has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question as to what is the reasonable rent under section 70 (ma) of the said Act, the said issue was referred to the Mamalatdar.

4. By Judgment and Order dated 30/10/1982 Tenancy Awal Karkoon determined that the reasonable rent was Rs. 600/- per annum. The Appeal filed by the Respondents before the SDO, Shahuwadi, Division Kolhapur being Tenancy Appeal No. 15 of 1983 was dismissed on 29/1/1988. Aggrieved by these orders the Respondents filed Tenancy Revision Application No. MRT-KP-132 of 1988 in the MRT. By impugned Judgment and Order dated 29/9/2001 the learned Designated Member, M.R.T., Pune has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh enquiry and decision as per law. It is this order which is impugned by the original Plaintiffs in the Suit.

5. Mr. Kulkarni submitted that a full opportunity had already been given to the parties to lead evidence and accordingly, the parties had already led oral and documentary evidence; a finding of fact has been recorded by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon and the SDO and, considering the scope of Section 76, it was not open to the MRT to remand the matter back to the Trial Court unless and until the MRT reaches a conclusion on independent appreciation of evidence that the evidence available on record was insufficient or that an opportunity had been denied to lead evidence or that the finding of fact recorded by the Mamlatdar and SDO were either perverse or were contrary to the record. He submitted that the MRT should have decided revision on its own merits itself.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Patil supports the impugned order. He relies on the Judgment of the Single Judge (Patel, J) dated 3rd March, 1965 in Special Civil Application no. 1120 of 1964 in case of Anna BalappaDattawade & Anr. v/s. Sayed Yakub Badriuddin Desai & ors. And submitted that the Mamlatdar and SDO had proceeded on the wrong assumption that Section 43B is applicable. According to Mr. Patil, in which position prior to 1956 was required to be taken into consideration and since the evidence on record was not found to be sufficient, the MRT has taken a liberal view and had passed the order of remand.

7. I have considered rival submissions. Section 76 of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948 reads thus:

“76. Revision

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1939, an application for revision may be made to the [Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal] constituted under the said Act, against any order of the Collector on the following grounds only :-

(a) that the order of the