JUDGMENT :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

1. Rule. In view of limited nature of the controversy, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The challenge in these petitions is to the judgment and order dated 17th February 2017 passed by the learned Member (Administrative), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai in Review Application Nos. 6 of 2016, 7 of 2016 and 8 of 2016, whereby the learned Member was persuaded to dispose of the review applications on the premise that the learned Member, who had passed the judgment and order of which the review was sought, ceased to be a Member of the Tribunal. The learned Member referred to Regulation 37 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Regulations 2013 and found himself constrained to entertain the review applications, as Shri J.P. Dange, the then Member (Administrative), who has passed the order in Tenancy Revision Application No. 119 of 2014, 120 of 2014 and 121 of 2014 on 7th May 2016, ceased to hold office as a Member of the Tribunal.

3. In the backdrop of the order passed by the learned Member, the reference to the facts in all the petitions is not warranted except to note the circumstances in which the review petitions came to be filed. The petitioner claims that a certificate under section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('The Act, 1948'), came to be issued to him in the year 1962 pursuant to an order passed by ALT in Tenancy Case No. 154 of 1962. After a period of about 51 years, the petitioner asserts, the respondents filed an appeal, being Tenancy Appeal No. 13 of 2013, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kankavali, which came to be dismissed. The respondents carried the matter in revision in Revision Application No. TNC/RTN/121/2014. By judgment and order dated 7th May 2016, the learned Member, MRT was persuaded to allow the revision application preferred by the respondent.

4. The petitioner sought review of the said order by filing Review Application No. 7 of 2016. The President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by order dated 30th June 2016 opined that it was a fit case for reconsideration. The further proceedings before the lower authorities were stayed and records and proceedings were directed to be called.

5. On 17th February 2017, when the review petitions were listed before the learned Member (Administrative), the impugned order came to be passed.

6. Since the learned Member has disposed of the review petitions under an impression that in view of the fact that Mr. J.P. Dange, the then Member (Administrative) ceased to hold office of Member of the Tribunal, the review petitions were untenable, it would be necessary to extract the observations of the learned Member:

"3. At the very find outset, I would like to refer to the mandatory provisions as laid down under the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 2013 for dealing with Review Applications. Regulation 37 deals with the hearing of review applications and for the sake of clarity, it is reproduced here below:-

"37 Hearing of review application :-- Where a single member or the members of a bench or one of such members, who decided the case or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue to be a member or members of the Tribunal at the time when the application for such review is to be heard, such member or a bench consisting of such member or members, as the case may be, shall hear the application and o other member or bench shall hear the same."

4 Now, in the light of the above mentioned mandatory provisions, the present Review Applications are required to be viewed as this Tribunal is bound by the provisions made in the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 2013.

5 Perusal of the orders impugned, of which the review is sought for in all the review applications reveals that in all these all the orders passed in Tenancy Revision Application Nos. 119/2014, 120/2014 and 121/2014 decided on 7th May 2016 are passed by Shri J.P. Dange, the then Member (Adm