has been challenged not by the original landlord but by one Dashrath Bapu Patil, that by itself would not render the said order without jurisdiction as the SDO in law, it is not disputed has power and authority to pass the said order. Merely because the order has been passed on an appeal filed by a person, who was not a party to the original proceedings before the ALT that by itself, would not render the order nullity more so, when the appellant Dashrath Bapu Patil is stated to be a person, who has been allotted a piece of land in respect of which tenancy is being claimed on account of its acquisition for the Dudhganga Dam Project. It is also necessary to note that the present petitioner No.1 as well as Balu Govinda Chavan, were noticed, inspite of which they choose not to appear. In fact the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the SDO in Tenancy Revision No. 05/1999 (Page-147) records this position of the order under Section 70(b) dated 11.07.1997 being set aside in Tenancy Appeal No.1/1999 by the order dated 07.05.1999 which would indicate that the present petitioners and the predecessors were aware of this order, in view of the fact that against the order dated 22.07.1999 they had preferred a revision before the learned MRT and therefore
