Tenancy rights remain suspended during a mortgage but are not extinguished; execution of a mortgage does not imply surrender of tenancy rights.

Judgment :

1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2) These Petitions challenge order dated 30 January 2016 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (MRT) by which the MRT has allowed revision filed by the Respondents (Revision Application No. P/VIII/3/2011) and has set aside order dated 14 July 2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Baramati (SDO) declaring that land bearing Gat Nos.28/1, 28/2, 28/3 and 28/4 admeasuring 18 Acres, 21 Guntha has been purchased by Petitioners and fixing its purchase price. Petitioners accordingly seek restoration of SDO’s order dated 14 July 2011 to the extent of land bearing Gat Nos.28/1, 28/2, 28/3 and 28/4. Order dated 30 January 2016 is also challenged by the Petitioners to the extent it rejects their own revision (Revision No. P/IX/1/2011) in which they had challenged SDO’s order dated 14 July 2011 to the extent of denial of tenancy rights in respect of land bearing Gat No.31. Accordingly, Petitioners seek declaration of their tenancy in respect of land bearing Gat No.31 as well and its purchase by fixing the price under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act)

3) Following two lands at Village-Pilanwadi, Taluka-Daund, District-Pune are subject matter of present Petitions:

(i) Land bearing Gat Nos.28/1, 28/2, 28/3 and 28/4 (Old Gat No.1760 and old Survey No.323/1) admeasuring 7 Hectare 49 Ares (18 Acre 21 Guntha).

(ii) Land bearing Gat No.31(old Gat No.1763 and old Survey No.325 of 2012) admeasuring 6 Hectare 44 Ares (15 Acre 38 Guntha).

4) Both the pieces of lands were owned by Gulabrao Gopalrao Khaire. It is the case of the Petitioners that Shri Vishnu Limba Kadam was inducted as a tenant in respect of both the pieces of lands vide written agreement (Lekhi Kabulayat Bhade Patta dated 2 June 1935). According to Petitioners, said Vishnu was cultivating both the pieces of lands as tenant in pursuance of the said written agreement dated 2 June 1935. After death of Vishnu Limba Kadam, his son-Bala Vishnu Kadam continued to cultivate both the pieces of lands as tenant. After death of Bala Vishnu Kadam, his sons-Dinkar, Sopana and Tukaram continued to cultivate both the pieces of lands as tenants. Name of elder son-Dinkar Bala Kadam was entered into revenue records as protected tenant vide Mutation Entry No. 2724 certified on 8 October 1949 in respect of both the pieces of lands. According to Petitioners, this is how Kadam family became protected tenants under Section 3A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (Act of 1939).

5) The Deed of Mortgage by conditional sale came to be executed between the landlord-Gulabrao Gopalrao Khaire (Mortgagor) and Bhiku Daulatrao Jarande & Sopana Bala Kadam (mortgagees), under which Rs. 5,500/- was advanced by Mr. Sopana Bala Kadam and Mr. Bhiku Daulatrao Jarande to the landlord and both the pieces of lands were mortgaged in favour of the mortgagees.

Under the Deed of Mortgage, the mortgage was to be redeemed within a period of 10 years, failing which both the pieces of lands were to be considered as sold in favour of the mortgagees. The Landlord’s son- Rajaram Gulabrao Khaire filed Regular Civil Suit No.65 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Daund, District-Pune, seeking redemption of the mortgage. The Suit came to be decreed on 24 April 1979 directing the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendants Rs.5,500/-, who were directed to execute re-conveyance Deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of both the pieces of lands. The efforts made by Petitioners for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 24 April 1979 did not yield any fruitful results. The Respondents-landlords filed execution proceeding being Regular Darkhast No.21 of 1979, in which order dated 11 January 1996 was passed directing deposit of the amount of Rs.5,500/- by the Plaintiffs in the Court and appointing officer of the Court to e