The court reaffirmed that the tenant's rights under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act were valid, and the revisional authority must not exceed its jurisdiction by reassessing factual determinations made by lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Present Writ Petition challenges the judgment and order dated 01.01.1998 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 (Camp at Kolhapur) (for short “MRT”) in MRT Revision Application No.58 of 1992 filed by the predecessor-in-title of Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) whereby the MRT has set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector) dated 25.01.1991 and order dated 10.07.1990 passed by the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T., Panhala.

2. The relevant facts necessary for determination of the present Writ Petition are as follows:-

2.1. Petitioner’s predecessor-in-title Bhau Tukaram Desai was admittedly a tenant of land bearing Survey No.137 (1) admeasuring 9 Acres and 6 Gunthas and assessed at Rs.11/- situated in Village Kate Bhogaon, Taluka Panhala, District Raigad (for short “said land”). Predecessor-in-title of Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) namely Mahadeo Sripati Kadam was admittedly the landlord of the said land.

2.2. On 22.11.1968, landlord Mahadeo Sripati Kadam filed Application under Section 88C of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the said Act”) being Tenancy Case No.57 of 1968 in the Court of Tenancy Aval Karkun, Panhala. Considering the financial position of the said Mahadeo Sripati Kadam, the Tenancy Case was allowed and exemption certificate dated 28.02.1970 was granted to him under Section 88C of the said Act.

2.3. The order dated 28.02.1970 and certificate were challenged by the predecessor-in-title of Petitioner by filing Tenancy Appeal No.75 of 1971 and Tenancy Appeal No.76 of 1971. Both these Appeals were heard by the Special Deputy Collector, Kolhapur who by order dated 30.08.1971 allowed both Appeals and remanded the matter back to the Court of Tenancy Aval Karkun, Panhala for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

2.4. After hearing the parties, by order dated 30.04.1978 Application below Section 88C of the said Act filed by Respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(e)’s predecessor-in-title was partly allowed and Exemption Certificate under Section 88C of the said Act was directed to be issued only in respect of the share of Respondent No.1 - Gajanan Mahadeo Kadam to the extent of 0.06 annas i.e. 3/8^th share in the said land.

2.5. Being aggrieved by this order predecessor-in-title of Petitioner filed Tenancy Appeal No.59 of 1978 and predecessor-in-title of Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) filed Tenancy Appeal No.63 of 1978 before the Assistant Collector, Shahuwadi Division, Kolhapur. By common order dated 31.05.1979 both Tenancy Appeals were dismissed thereby confirming the order dated 30.04.1978 passed by the Court of Tenancy Aval Karkun, Panhala.

2.6. Thus according to Petitioner order dated 30.04.1978 was confirmed since no further Appeal was filed to the extent of Respondent No.1 being entitled to share of 0.06 annas i.e. 3/8^th share in the said land.

2.7. By virtue of the above proceedings, predecessor-in-title of the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) i.e. landlord became entitled to 3/8^th share in the said land whereas the balance land reverted back to the original tenant i.e. predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 88C .

2.8. In the interregnum on 30.04.1978 Regular Civil Suit No.86 of 1978 was filed by predecessor-in-title of Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) for injunction against predecessor-in-title of Petitioner and two others. The Civil Suit was resisted by predecessor-in-title of Petitioner contending that he was the deemed purchaser of the said land to the ex