SHARADCHANDRA MALHARRAO AJINKYA Vs. MARKUS PHILIPS MENDOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under art. 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27/06/1989 passed by the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision No. 33/1987.

(2.) THE petitioners claim to be owners in respect of land admeasuring guntha out of Survey No. 124 and 6 gunthas out of Survey No. 125, both situated at Uttan, district Thane. The respondent filed application for declaration that he was cultivating the suit lands as tenant since prior to the tillers' day. That application has been decided ex parte against the petitioners on the premise that inspite of notice of the proceedings, none appeared for the landlord. The Tahsildar, by judgment and order dated 2 5/12/1983, allowed the application preferred by the respondent-tenant. Against this decision, the petitioners filed appeal on 20/08/1985. According to the Petitioners, they were not informed about the decision passed by the Tahsildar and that fact came to their knowledge only on 22/07/1985, while inspection of the record before the tenancy authorities was taken. Soon thereafter, the certified copy was applied for by the petitioners of the decision passed by the Tahsildar, which was made ready on 12/08/1985 and delivered to the petitioners on the same day. The landlords accordingly asserted that since the appeal was filed within 60 days from the date of knowledge of the order, the appeal as filed was within limitation. The Appeal'court, however, by judgment and order dated 19/12/1986, dismissed the appeal on the sole reasoning that the appeal was time barred and the delay cannot be condoned. The appeal Court recorded that there was clear proof that a notice of the proceedings in the Lower Court was served on the landlord. Against this decision, the landlord carried the matter in revision before the M. R. T. who, in turn, has dismissed the same by the impugned judgment and order dated 27/06/1989.

(3.) BEFORE the revisional authority, it appears that a grievance was made on behalf of the landlord that the landlord had no intimation whatsoever regarding the decision passed by the Tahsildar and because of which he could not institute appeal within time. However, this contention has been rejected by the Appellate Court, on the reasoning that there are copies of letters indicating intimation of the decision of the case sent to the parties by registered post. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, the revisional authority has also recorded that there are no receipts of registered A. D. ' available on record, but still went on to observe that it must be presumed that intimation was sent to the parties by the office of the Tahsildar. It is on this basis that the revision preferred by the landlord has been dismissed.