The tenant's delay and admissions preclude claims under the Tenancy Act, emphasizing the validity of prior transactions and the necessity of prompt challenges.

1.Heard, M. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Suresh Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondents.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as under.

3. The subject - matter of a petition is Survey No. 45 admeasuring 8.36 acres now gut No. 72 and Survey No. 29 admeasuring 12.36 acres now gut No. 59 situated at village Rajegaon. Tq. Ambad, District Jalna. This land was owned by one Sakharam Bhimrao Deshpande. The respondent was the tenant of the said land. He sold the lands to Shivaji Raosaheb Deshmukh and Mandakini w/o Dattaji Deshmukh by sale deed dated 7-5-1966 copies of which are filed at Exhibit "C." Both these lands were thereafter purchased by the present petitioners on 26-2-1968 vide sale deeds at Exhibit "D" for a sum of Rs.30,000/- in all. It appears from the record that the original tenant was one Sk. Hussain s/o Sk. Farid and after his death during the proceedings his LRs. have been brought on record.

4. The original tenant filed application on 17-1-1985 u/s. 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act before the Deputy Collector, Land Records, Jalna on the ground that he was a protected tenant of Sakharam Bhimrao Deshpande that he was declared owner u/S. 38(E) of the Tenancy Act in the year 1986. But he was forcibly evicted from those lands by Raosaheb Deshmukh in 1964-65. It was also his case that he had filed suit for restoration and possession against said Deshmukh u/S. 98, however, under their pressure, he was required to compromise the matter and surrender his rights in favour of the said Deshmukh. According to him, the present petitioners who had purchased land from Shivaji and Mandakini Deshmukh do not get any legal right in respect of the land and the sale deed executed by Shivaji and Mandakini Deshmukh in favour of the present petitioner is illegal and invalid.

5. The Deputy Collector decided the case against respondent holding that the respondent had lost his tenancy rights and rejected the respondent' application u/S. 98. The original respondent thereafter filed appeal before the MRT. This appeal was allowed by the MRT on 11-9-1989 vide appeal No. 16 / A / 88 of Jalna. The petitioners have filed present petition against the said order of the MRT.

6. I heard both the advocates for the petitioner and the respondent at length. It was contended by Mr. Salunke that original respondent had no right to file application u/s. 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act of 1950) firstly because even if the original respondent was the tenant he has sold his lands to Shivaji and Mandakini Deshmukh on 7-5-1968 and has lost his possession since that date. Further the petitioners have purchased the lands by sale deed dated 26-2-1968 and are in continuous possession thereof. Mr. Salunke contended that petitioners are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and the sale deeds in their favour or the earlier sale deed in favour of Deshmukh were not illegal for any reason whatsoever. Further, according to Mr. Salunke, original respondent' application u/S. 98 was filed after 19 years of the first sale deed and 17 years of the second sale deed and no reasons were given by the respondent why he remained silent for such a long time of about 2 decades.

7. Mr. Salunke further contended that the original respondent - tenant had filed application u/s. 98 against Mr. Deshmukh, his purchasers but in that matter, the original respondent entered into compromise, filed the compromise before the competent Court and surrendered his rights in favour of his purchasers Mr. Deshmukh and therefore, according to Mr. Salunke, the respondent having surrendered his rights in favour of Deshmukh, t