A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1971. From the judgment and order dated 10th August, 1970 of the • Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1430 of 1967. M. C. Bhandare, P. H. Parekh, and Mrs. Sunanda Bhandare for the appellant. • B B. D. Bal and S. V. Parekh, and S. V. Tambvekar for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J. This apeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 10th August, 1970, of the High Court of Judicature at c Bombay. t Appellants are heirs of one Ramkrishna Khandu Chaudhari who was a protected tenant of the suit lands belonging to Respondent No. 1. The landlord made an application against the tenant in the Court of Extra A val Karkum for possession of the suit lands under s. 29 read with ss. 14 and 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground D that the tenant had committed defaults in payment of the rents for the years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56. The Aval Karkum who tried the application, found that the annual rent of the lands payable by the ,. tenant was Rs. 685/-, and that, in all,, the tenant had paid Rs. 1045/12/- towards the rent of these three years. He held that the appellants were not wilful defaulters and granted them under s.25 ( 1) three months' time to pay the arrears of rent. He however refused to pass E any order for payment of the subsequent rent. The tenant did not appeal against this order. But the landlord preferred on appeal to the District Deputy Collector, Jalgaon who on September 30, 1961 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Aval Karkun and remanded the case for finding out the exact amount of the arrears up to the date of the order and decreeing the claim accordingly. The landlord preF ferred a Revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which allowed the same by its_-£rder, dated September 4, 1962, and remanded the case to be examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype and Ors. v. Aha Maruti Mali and Ors. (1) and in some High Court judgments. It further directed that the District Deputy Collector might allow the parties to lead additional evidence, if he thought it necessary. G On remand, the Deputy Collector allowed the parties to lead evidence and redecided the case. He held that the rent fixed was Rs. 500 /- per year, and that only one default, and not three defaults, had been •• proved and consequently, the land-lord was not entitled to the possession of the suit lands. He remitted the case to the Extra Aval Karkum for passing an order under s. 25 (I) of the Act. The landlord aoa;,, H went in revision before the Tribunal aoainst this order, dated April 23, 1964. The Tribunal held that the Deputy Collector bad no jurisilic- - - ------!. [19621 Suppl. I. S. C. R. 739.
