application accepting the oral evidence as well as the fact that prior to the year 1989, the petitioner could have been in possession of the property in question as a tenant. The Respondent no.1 who claims to be a tenant in respect of the property in question based on the Lease Agreement which has been executed in his favour by the Landlord in the year 1989 filed an appeal before the Dy. Collector. Incidentally, the Respondent no.1 was a party to the proceeding before the Mamlatdar. It appears that before the Dy. Collector, notices came to be issued to the parties on 10/07/1996, which notice was served upon the parties which included the petitioner herein. Since the petitioner failed to remain present for hearing on 11/2/1997, the Dy. Collector was forced to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. The Dy. Collector allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and set aside the declaration of tenancy which was granted by the Mamlatdar in favour of the petitioner. The said appeal was allowed for the reasons which have been inter alia mentioned in the order of the Dy. Collector dated 2/9/1997. It appears that some disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 pursuant to which the matter had reached the local police station concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that she became aware of the order dated 2/9/1997 passed by the Dy. Collector when a copy of the said order was shown to the son of the petitioner in the police station. The petitioner having got knowledge of the said order dated 2/9/1997 passed by the Dy. Collector invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal by filing Tenancy Revision Application
