40-WP-1801-2016.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1801 OF 2016 Shri Bhiwasen Posha Shinde … Petitioner Vs. Shri Vaktarmal Juharmal Jain … Respondents (Since deceased) through LRS Mr. Vijay Suhas Gharat a/w. Mr. Rehan R. Momin and Mr. Sarvesh Gharat for the Petitioner. Mr. Sunil G. Karandikar for the Respondents. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 19th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the original respondent in the tenancy proceedings to challenge the concurrent orders passed for eviction on the ground of termination of tenancy under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“Tenancy Act”). The landlord terminated the tenancy by issuing notice for non-payment of rent. The application was filed under Section 29 for possession. The order of eviction was passed on 4th January 2001 by learned Tahsildar. This order was confirmed in the tenancy appeal filed before the sub-divisional officer. 1/3 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2025.11.20 17:31:57 +0530 40-WP-1801-2016.docx 2. Being aggrieved by both the orders the petitioner filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT”). MRT has also confirmed the order. MRT dismissed the revision applications of three tenants by passing a common judgment. The common judgment passed by MRT is confirmed by this court in Writ Petition No. 10184 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 973 of 2016 filed by the other two tenants. Copies of the orders are placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father was the tenant of the original landlord and the present respondent had no authority to initiate proceedings for eviction. He relied upon Mutation Entry No. 1409, to support his submissions that his father was the ordinary tenant of the original landlord. He therefore submits that under the provisions of the Tenancy Act the petitioner would be a deemed protected tenant and the only proceeding that could be initiated was under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act for fixation of purchase price. He therefore submits that the impugned orders would require interference. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no evidence produced on record to show payment of the 2/3 40-WP-1801-2016.docx arrears of rent. Even before the civil court the respondents’ ownership is accepted and an order of injunction is passed against the petitioner. He therefore submits that in the absence of any proof of payment of rent no fault can be found in the impugned orders. 5. I have perused the papers of the petition. The challenge to the impugned order by the other two tenants on the similar ground is dismissed by this court in the connected petitions. The order of eviction is based on the ground that the tenancy is terminated for non-payment of arrears of rent. Nothing is seen on record to show that amount of arrears of rent was paid. 6. Considering the evidence on record, MRT has confirmed the orders passed by the tenancy authorities. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3