JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 20th October, 1994, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 (“the MRT”) in Revision Application No. MRT.NS.VI.1/91 (TNC.B.132/91), whereby the learned Member allowed the revision application, and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon, Sub-Division, Satara, on 15th October, 1990, in Tenancy Appeal No.4 of 1988, under Section 84 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1948”) directing the eviction of the respondents from the agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos.22, 24A, 287, 290 to 294A situated at village Vikhale, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara (hereinafter referred to as “the suit lands”).

2. The background facts leading to the instant petition can be stated in brief as under:

(a) The predecessor-in-title of the respondents, Shri.Tatya Ahirekar was the landlord of the suit lands. Mr.Jaisingh Ahirekar, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, was the tenant of the suit lands. The petitioners and their predecessor-in-title are hereinafter referred to as “the tenant” and the respondents and their predecessor-in-title are referred to as “the landlord”.

(b) The original landlord obtained a certificate under Section 88-C of the Act of 1948, on 10th July, 1962, on the ground that the lands did not exceed the economic holding and total annual income of the landlord did not exceed Rs.1,500/-. It is the claim of the landlord that in view of the grant of the certificate under Section 88-C of the Act of 1948, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (“ALT”) was persuaded to drop the proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act of 1948. The original tenant Jaisingh died on 23rd September, 1980. The landlord preferred an application bearing Application No.77 of 1982, seeking a negative declaration that the deceased Jaisingh was not the tenant of the suit lands. By order dated 20th September, 1987, the ALT dismissed the application of the landlord holding, inter alia, that the deceased Jaisingh was in cultivation of the suit lands on the Tiller's day. The tenants were advised to file an application under Section 84 of the Act of 1948 for restoration of possession of the suit lands.

(c) The tenants filed an application under Section 84 of the Act before the Collector, Satara. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara, after holding an enquiry was persuaded to allow the application holding, inter alia, that though the landlord was a certificated landlord, the possession of the suit lands was not obtained in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 33B of the Act of 1948; the ALT in a proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act of 1948 found that the deceased tenant was in cultivation of the suit lands and the said finding has attained finality. In this backdrop, the claim of the landlords that they have obtained possession of the suit lands from the tenants was held to be unsustainable as the landlords were not entitled to take possession of the tenanted lands, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act of 1948. Thus, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the application and directed the landlords to evict themselves from the suit lands and restore the possession of the suit lands to the tenants.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of restoration of possession, the landlords preferred revision before the MRT. It appears that the said revision application was not preferred within the stipulated period of limitation, and, thus, was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The learned Member, MRT, after hearing the parties, was persuaded to condone the delay and allow the revision application by one and the same order dated 20th October, 1994. To arrive at the finding that the deceased Jaisingh was not in possession of the suit lands on