The court confirmed that the landlord must prove bona fide need for personal cultivation under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, while prior orders regarding exemption certificates remain binding.

JUDGMENT:

1. This Writ Petition arises out of proceedings between parties under provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the said Act”). The order impugned in the present Writ Petition is dated 12.09.1996 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (for short “MRT, Pune”) in Revision proceedings under the said Act. By this order, the MRT, Pune dismissed the Revision Application filed by the Petitioners and upheld the order dated 15.02.1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Madha (for short “SDO”) in Tenancy Appeal No.18 of 1993 and the order dated 30.09.1993 passed by the Tahsildar, Madha in Tenancy Case No.83 of 1991.

2. Thus, there are three concurrent orders against the Petitioners. Writ Petition was filed in 1997 and interim order in terms of prayer clause ‘c’ was granted on 17.04.1997. On 25.09.1997, interim order was varied and parties were directed to maintain status quo during the pendency of the Petition.

3. To appreciate the lis between the parties, it will be apposite to refer to the relevant facts which are outlined herein under:-

(i) Petitioner’s predecessor-in-title i.e. their father namely Anant Lungase was the tenant of land bearing Gat No.75 situated at Village Lahu, Taluka Madha, District Solapur (for short “the subject land”). Predecessor-in- title of Respondents namely their father Hanumant T. Kamble was the landlord.

(ii) It is the Petitioners’ contention that their father became a deemed purchaser of the subject land in view of the provisions of the said Act.

(iii) According to Petitioners, proceedings under Section 32G of the said Act were initiated sometime in the year 1959. However, averment to that effect is made without furnishing any details. According to Petitioners, proceedings under Section 32G were numbered as 17 of 1969. On 27.05.1968, an agreement for sale was entered into between the predecessor-in-title of Petitioners and Respondents which was registered. Once again save and except the averments, the copy of registered agreement is not produced on record.

(iv) On 31.03.1984 the Tahsildar passed an order allowing the proceedings in favour of the Petitioners’ predecessor-in-title and directed issuance of the certificate under Section 32M of the said Act.

(v) Certificate under Section 32M of the said Act was granted. Respondents' predecessor-in-title being aggrieved filed Tenancy Appeal No.48 of 1984 before the Appellate Authority i.e. SDO. By order dated 25.11.1987, SDO dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order dated 31.03.1984 passed by the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved, Respondents’ predecessor-in-title filed Revision proceedings before the MRT, Pune being proceedings No.MRT.SH.III./4/88. By order dated 31.03.1989, the MRT, Pune quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar (31.03.1984) and SDO (25.11.1987) and allowed the Revision Application on the ground that proceedings under Section 32G of the said Act could not have commenced as the landlord (predecessor-in-tile of Respondents’) had obtained the exemption certificate under Section 88C of the said Act.

(vi) In view of the above ruling, predecessor-in-title of Respondents namely Hanumant T. Kamble i.e. their father filed Tenancy Case No.83 of 1991 under Section 33B of the said Act seeking possession of the subject land from the predecessor-in-title of Petitioners. During pendency of the said proceedings both the original landlord and tenant expired and proceedings were continued by their legal heirs who are parties before me.

(vii) By order dated 30.09.1993, Tahsildar, Madha allowed Tenancy Case No.83 of 1991 in favour of Respondents and against the Petitioners. Being aggrieved, Petitioners filed Tenancy Appeal No.18 of 1983 before the Appellate Authority i.e. SDO. By order dated 15.02.1994, SDO dismissed the Tenancy Appeal and upheld the order passed by Tahsildar, Madha. Being aggrieved, Petitioners filed Revision proceedings before the MRT, Pune against the order passed by the SDO. On