IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, a landlord must follow specific procedures for terminating a tenancy due to non-payment of rent, and tenants must demonstrate valid grounds for condonation of delay in appeals related to such terminations.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

SANDEEP V.MARNE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for parties, Petition is taken up for hearing.

2. Petitioners challenge the Judgment and Order dtd. 12/11/2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ('MRT'), Camp Kolhapur, allowing the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.1 and setting aside the order dtd. 23/11/2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer ('SDO') condoning the delay in filing Tenancy Appeal No.71/2020. The MRT has rejected the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioners in Tenancy Appeal No.71/2020. That Tenancy Appeal was filed by the Petitioners challenging the order dtd. 28/05/2018 passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal-cum-Tehsildar ('ALT'), Panhala.

3. Facts of the case are that Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are tenants in respect of the land admeasuring 57 R of Gat No.103 and 4 Hector 10 R of Gat No.175 situated at Village Waloli, Tal. Panhala, Dist. Kolhapur. Respondent No.1 is the landlord in respect of that land.

4. Respondent No.1 filed Tenancy Case No.30/1985 under Sec. 43B of The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('Tenancy Act') before the Tehsildar for fixation of reasonable rent in respect of the land. The Tehsildar fixed the reasonable rent of Rs.6, 379.00for the year 1985-86. Respondent No.1 challenged Tehsildar's decision before the SDO. By the Order dtd. 16/03/1988, the SDO dismissed the Tenancy Appeal upholding the Order of the Tehsildar. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed Tenancy Revision Application No. 150/1989 before the MRT challenging the decisions of SDO and Tehsildar. The MRT allowed the Revision Application by the Order dtd. 25/01/2016 and fixed the rent in respect of the land @ Rs.10, 000.00 per year from the year 1985-86 onwards.

5. Despite fixation of rent @ Rs.10, 000.00 per year from 1985-86 onwards, Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 failed to pay the due amount of rent from the year 1985-86. Respondent No. 1 thereafter served Notice dtd. 30/06/2016 on tenants stating that an amount of Rs.2, 87, 500.00 was due and payable towards the rent as on 31/05/2016. Respondent No.1 therefore terminated tenancy by giving 3 months' notice i.e. w.e.f. 30/6/2016. Despite receipt of notice, the tenants failed to pay the outstanding rent to Respondent No.1, who therefore filed Tenancy Case No.2/2017 before the ALT seeking possession of the land in question. The tenants resisted the said tenancy case by raising a vague defence that they had paid rent in respect of land from time to time, but Respondent No.1 had failed to issue receipts. The ALT-cum-Tehsildar passed order dtd. 28/05/2018 under the provisions of Sec. 25(1) of the Tenancy Act holding that the amount of rent due and payable by the tenants to Respondent No.1 was Rs.3, 15, 250.00 for the period 1985-86 to 2017-18. The ALT directed tenants to pay the amount of Rs.3, 15, 250.00within 3 months, failing which they would be removed from possession of the land, which would be put in the possession of Respondent No.1. The tenants neither paid the rent as directed by the Order dtd. 28/05/2018 nor challenged that order. After waiting for some time, Respondent No.1 filed Tenancy Application No.3/2018 seeking possession of land on account of failure to pay rent within the time stipulated in the Order dtd. 28/05/2018. Instead of paying the rent due, the Respondents resisted the said execution proceedings by filing reply. By Order dtd. 13/07/2019, the Tehsildar directed removal of land from possession of the tenants and handing the same in favour of Respondent No.1. The Petitioners filed Tenancy Appeal No.99/2019 before the SDO, Panhala, which came to be rejected by the Order dtd. 13/02/2020.

6. The Petitioners filed further Revision before the MRT challenging the SDO's decision dtd. 13/02/2020, but later they withdrew the same as they realized that there was no point in pursuing orders passed in execution proceedings. The