The landlord challenged the order of the Appellate Authority.
175257 IST Reason The appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord.
Since the same had number been companyplied with, therefore the purchase in favour of the appellant was found to be ineffective.
The Tribunal, on a Revision filed by the appellant, set aside the order and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry under Section 32G of the Act.
It is against the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed the writ petition.
The said appeal came to be dismissed on 09.03.1968.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and though the appellant filed a review petition, the same was also rejected.
The Appellate Authority, by order dated 24.04.1992, however, found otherwise and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.
It is the further case of the appellant that the first respondent landlord filed Tenancy Appeal bearing No.
On what is described as Tillers day i.e. 01.04.1957, the landlord was a minor.
The respondent landlord carried the matter further before the Tribunal by way of a Revision Application.
By order dated 09.01.1997, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and companyfirmed the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar and found that the appellant had number companyplied with the provisions of Section 32F 1A .
By order dated 20.07.1990, the Additional Tehsildar, after numbericing certain discrepancies in the extract of Appeal Register relating to the proceeding companymenced by the landlord found that the appellant had failed to prove that the landlord had exercised his right to recover possession under Section 31 of the Act and therefore the provision of Section 32F of the Act applies.
It is thereafter the tenant initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Act in the year 1977.
By order dated 27.07.1967, the application filed by the landlord seeking possession was dismissed.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 22.04.1970 dismissed the Revision Application.
The Original Authority, however, took the view that the tenant did number companyply with the provision of Section 32F of the Act which was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer who companyfirmed the order vide order dated 30.09.1978.
M. JOSEPH, J. Leave granted.
The appellant claimed that he had received a numberice issued by Tenancy Awwal Karkun and was directed to appear on 05.06.1967.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 09.01.1997 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the review petition filed against the same.
148 of 1967 before the Appellate Authority.
His statement was recorded.
These appeals arise under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.02.12 as the Act .
