A tenant's consistent failure to pay rent for three years, with proper notice, justifies termination of tenancy under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

JUDGMENT :

1) These petitions are filed by Petitioner challenging the order dated 30 December 1997 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (MRT) in Revision Application Nos.43 of 1997 and 38 of 1997. The MRT, by its order dated 30 December 1997, has allowed Revision Application No.38 of 1997 filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and has dismissed Revision Application No.43 of 1997 filed by the Petitioner and has set aside the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) dated 21 March 1997 by which the SDO had remanded the proceedings to Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. The MRT has allowed the application filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and has directed restoration of possession of the land in their favour by taking it out from possession of the Petitioner. In short, the impugned order passed by the MRT has resulted in loss of possession of the tenanted land by the Petitioner and restoration thereof in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2) Agricultural land bearing Gat No.399 admeasuring 1 H 39 R situated at Village-Yedemachindra, Taluka-Walwa, District- Sangli is the subject matter of the present Petition (agricultural land). The predecessors of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the owners in respect of the agricultural land and Petitioner's father was a tenant therein. It appears that the proceedings for fixation of purchase price of the agricultural land have neither been initiated nor purchase of the land by the tenant has taken place. This is on account of the land being given for cultivation of sugarcane crop. However, there was litigation between the landlord and the tenant over the issue of quantum of rent payable in respect of the agricultural land. The initial rent of the land was Rs.68.50/-. By way of order passed in Tenancy Case No.55 of 1968, the rent was increased to Rs. 250/-. The landlord again filed Tenancy Case No.709 of 1987 before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Walwa (ALT) which was decided on 27 March 1990 and the rent was further increased to Rs.500/-. The landlords filed Tenancy Appeal No.35 of 1990 before the SDO and by allowing the Appeal, the rent was increased to Rs.1,500/-. The landlords filed Revision Application before the MRT for enhancement of the rent and the said proceedings were pending as on the date of filing of the petition.

3) According to the Petitioner, on account of pendency of dispute about quantum of rent, he could not pay rent for the years 1991- 92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The Respondents sent three notices to the Petitioner on 11 June 1992, 14 June 1993 and 10 June 1994 for alleged non-payment of rent during the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. As the Petitioner did not pay the rent despite service of notices, Respondents filed Tenancy Case No.217 of 1995 before the Tenancy Avhal Karkun, Islampur, seeking restoration of possession of the agricultural land on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Tenancy Avhal Karkun allowed the said Application by his judgment and order dated 30 March 1996 holding that the Petitioner had committed default in payment of rent. Tenancy of the Petitioner was accordingly terminated and direction was given for recovery of possession of agricultural land from the Petitioner by handing it over to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4) Petitioner filed Tenancy Appeal No.12 of 1996 before the SDO challenging the order of Tenancy Avhal Karkun. By judgment and order dated 4 July 1997, the SDO allowed the Appeal partly by setting aside the order passed by the Tenancy Avhal Karkun and remanded the proceedings by directing Tahsildar, Walwa to make an enquiry into the case as per provisions of Sections 14, 25 and 29 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act)

5) The Tahsildar conducted a fresh enquiry in Tenancy Case No.217 of 1995 and confirmed the tenancy rights of the Petitioner in respect of the agricultural land under provisions of Section 25 of the Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar further directed Petitioner to pay rent at the rate of R