( 1 ) THESE two petitions are filed by two brothers who are landlords challenging the order of the Revenue Tribunal dated 18th August 1962 by which the Revenue Tribunal has set aside the findings of the two lower authorities. It has held that the application of the two landlords under sec. 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act were time barred and has dismissed the said application on that ground. As these two petitions raise common questions of law and facts they are disposed of together by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE short facts which have given rise to these petitions are as under:s. No. 387 admeasuring 7 Acres and 30 Gunthas originally stood in the name of one brother Ranchhoddas the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1018 of 1962. It is the case of the petitioner that the original S. No. 387 was divided into two parts in 1950-51 and accordingly 3 acres of land went to the share of the petitioner Ambalal and it was given a separate number 387 while the remaining 4 Acres and 30 Gunthas went to the share of the other brother Chandulal. He died during the pendency of these proceedings and his heirs are the petitioners in Spl. C. A. No 1019/62. That land was given S. No. 387/a/l. On 17th June 1957 opponent No. 1 tenant Shamjibhai Ladhabhai filed a suit in the Mamlatdars Court under sec. 5 of the Mamlatdars Court Act for injunction in respect of the entire original S. No. 387 against only one brother Ambalal on the ground that even though he was a tenant of that land the petitioner Ambalal was interfering with his possession. In that suit the other brother (Chandulal was not joined as a party. The petitioner Ambalal filed a written statement in the suit on 15th July 1957 denying that the opponent No. 1 was in possession of that land or that he was a tenant. By the order dated 22nd September 1958 the Mamlatdar issued an injunction against the petitioner Ambalal from disturbing the cultivation of opponent No. 1 Shamjibhai but as Chandulal was not a party to that suit the order was confined to that part of the land which belonged only to the petitioner Ambalal viz. S. No. 387/1 2 of 3 Acres only. The Mamlatdar had relied upon the pencil entry In the Village Form 7a showing Shamjibhai as tenant which was made on 15th March 1957. On 11 October 1958 a notice was served on Ambalal to show cause why that pencil entry should not he confirmed and In that mutation proceeding Ambalal had lodged his objections on 22nd October 1958. Meanwhile Ambalal had already applied for summary eviction of the tenant Shamjibhai before the Collector under sec. 84 of the Tenancy Act on 4th August 1958 By the order dated 19th May 1959 the Collector held that the said application did not lie and referred Ambalal to the Mamlatdar to get decision under sec. 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as `the Act. It also appears from the record that the other brother Chandulal had given power of attorney to petitioner Ambalal in respect of his land on 25th March 1958. During the pendency of the application under sec. 84 by Ambalal against opponent No. 1 both the brothers filed the present applications under sec. 70 (b) of the Act on 11th April 1959. The Mamlatdar disposed them by the order dated 29th August 1959 holding that opponent No. 1 Shamjibhai was a tenant. In Appeal the Prant Officer remanded this matter by the order dated 30th July 1960. Meanwhile the other brother Chandulal died and on 26th January 1960 his heirs were brought on record. It appears that Ambalal must have been holding their power of attorney as well. On 28th August 1961 the Mamlatdar passed the final order holding that opponent No. 1 was not a tenant. The Mamlatdar held the application to be within six months from the date when notice of the pencil entry on the record of rights was served on Ambalal to show cause why it should not be confirmed and also