Parties cannot reopen established compromises in tenancy cases unless new, substantial grounds are presented that were not previously adjudicated.

1. This petition is filed challenging judgment and order dated 14 August 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Tenancy Revision Application No.38/2002, by which the Revision is rejected and judgment and order dated 25 July 2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in Tenancy Appeal No.19/2002 has been upheld.

2. Petitioners claim to be the tenants of the land bearing Survey No.31/1 and 31/2, Village-Ravdi, Taluka-Phaltan, District- Satara, of which, Bhate Family was the landlord. Some litigation took place between the Petitioners-tenants and Bhate Family with regard to Petitioners’ status as tenants and it appears that Petitioners were held to be lawful tenants of the land in proceedings upto the Supreme Court. The landlord-Bhate family had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 357/1980 for injunction against Petitioners to restrain them from disturbing possession of Bhate Family. In the said suit, parties arrived at a compromise, under which Petitioners-tenants and landlord-Bhate family agreed to retain one-half share each in the land. In pursuance of the compromise so arrived between the parties, Petitioners-tenants paid purchase price in respect of one-half share of the land and were confirmed as purchasers therein under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Tenancy Act) .

3. It appears that after such compromise and declaration of Petitioners as purchasers in respect of one-half portion of the land, the landlord-Bhate Family sold the remaining half-portion, which had come to their share, to Respondents No.8 to 11-Dhumal Family by registered sale-deed executed on 3 July 2002. Petitioners thereafter filed Tenancy Case No.3/2001 before the Tehsildar, Phaltan under Sections 15 and 32G of the Tenancy Act for a declaration that the surrender effected by Petitioners on 28 April 1989 was invalid and for fixation of price under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act and for handing over possession of the land from the purchasers-Dhumal Family.

4. The Bhate Family as well as Dhumal Family appeared in the Tenancy Case No.3/2001 and filed application on 4 June 2001 for framing of preliminary issues of maintainability and limitation and to dismiss the same. Petitioners resisted the application by filing their reply. Tehsildar passed order dated 1 October 2001, partly allowing the application but did not dismiss the tenancy case. Instead, he directed both the parties to produce evidence in respect of their respective contentions. Since the Tehsildar did not dismiss Petitioner’ Tenancy case, Bhate Family and Dhumal Family filed Tenancy Appeal No.19/2002 before the SDO challenging Tehsildar’s decision. By order dated 25 July 2002, SDO allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the Tehsildar holding that the tenancy case filed by Petitioners was hit by the principles of res-judicata. Petitioners filed Tenancy Revision Application No. 38/2002 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune challenging SDO’s decision. The Tribunal however rejected the Revision Application by order dated 14 August 2017. The order passed by the Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

5. Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel would appear on behalf of the Petitioners and question the very maintainability of the application dated 4 June 2001 filed by Bhate and Dhumal Families. He would submit that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings before the Tehsildar and therefore rejection of tenancy case could not have been sought on framing of preliminary issues. He would submit that the application filed by Bhate and Dhumal families was only for framing of preliminary issues. That the prayer for dismissal of tenancy case was