The main legal point established in the judgment is the valid termination of tenancy under Section 30 of the Tenancy Act and the applicability of the exemption under Section 129(b) for lands held by a trust for public religious worship.

B.R. Gavai, J.

The appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 516 of 1992 dated 13th of January, 2005, thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondent and upholding the order passed by Tahsildar dated 9th of March, 1988 while setting aside the order passed by the first appellate authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer dated 27th of June, 1988 and revisional authority i.e. learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur dated 19th of November, 1991.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under -

The respondent is a Public Trust having registration No.A-250 (Bul) and the owner of land admeasuring 28 Acres 27 gunthas at mauza Lamkani, tahsil Akot, which is subject matter of the present proceedings. The respondent - Trust has got exemption under the provisions of Section 129(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region) Act. On 15th of June, 1962 alleging that the appellant tenant was in arrears of the lease amount, notice was issued on 12th of August, 1986 terminating the tenancy and seeking possession of the suit land. The said notice was received by tenant on 21st of August, 1986 and reply to the said notice was filed by tenant on 10th of September, 1986. In the reply it was admitted by the appellant -tenant that on account of drought in the year 1983-84 he could not forward rent though after notice he forwarded rent, however, same was refused by the respondent. After termination of tenancy, the proceedings were initiated for seeking possession. The Tahsildar vide order dated 9th of March, 1988 allowed the application and directed the appellant -tenant to pay the arrears of rent within a period of three months from the date of said order. Being aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred to the appellate authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 27th of June, 1988 and the order of Tahsildar was set aside. Being aggrieved thereby the respondent filed revision before the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 19th of November, 1991. Being aggrieved thereby writ petition came to be filed before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13th of January, 2005 allowed the petition. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Shri S.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and not sustainable on the following grounds.

(i) that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration that the notice issued to the appellant was under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Janrao Jairamji Vidhale Vs. Devidas Deorao Vyavhare and others, the provisions of Transfer of property Act were excluded from their operation to the tenancies which are governed under the said Act. He submitted that since the tenancy was not terminated by following the procedure prescribed under the said Act, the termination was illegal.

(ii) On combine reading of Section 19 read with Section 30 of the Tenancy Act unless there are three defaults, the tenancy cannot be terminated.

(iii) In view of the provisions of Section 46 of the Tenancy Act since the appellant was a tenant in possession of suit land on 1st of April, 1961, he had become deemed owner of the said land and as such the exemption granted under Section 129(b) of the Act subsequently was of no avail to the respondent.

4. We have perused the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the learned Sub Divisional Officer and learned Tahsildar. Perusal of the record would reveal that though the notice issued by the respondent mentions provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, it also makes reference to Section 19 of the said Act. Not only