A tenant cultivating on the tiller’s day becomes a deemed purchaser, defeasible only under the statute.

Dunda Kolya Karbhari was recorded as a tenant of the subject land from 1954–55, and his name was entered in the record of rights in 1956.

After his death in 1971, the names of his widow and children, including Lilabai—the petitioners’ mother—were mutated in respect of the land.

In 2012, the respondents claiming as landlords sought a declaration under Section 70(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“MTAL Act”) that certain persons, including Lilabai, were not tenants and sought deletion of their names.

The petitioners were not joined, and the ALT allowed the application on the basis of an affidavit filed for respondents 5 and 6.

The SDO allowed the petitioners’ appeal, finding, among other things, that they were necessary parties and that the tenancy and its termination had not been properly examined.

The MRT reversed the SDO’s order, relying principally on statements by other heirs that they were not cultivating or possessing the land.

The petitioners challenged the MRT’s decision under Article 227.

Whether the MRT exceeded the limits of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 76 of the MTAL Act by overturning the SDO’s order on the basis of factual reassessment.

Whether the ALT could grant the requested negative declaration without joining the petitioners, and without examining the tenancy and its lawful termination under the MTAL Act.

Whether the recorded tenancy and cultivation of the land on the tiller’s day, and the absence of a surrender or dispossession in accordance with the Act, precluded deletion of the tenants’ names on the material relied upon by the ALT and MRT.

Section 76(1) of the MTAL Act confines the MRT’s revisional jurisdiction to an order contrary to law, failure to determine a material issue of law, or a substantial procedural defect resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Under Section 32, a tenant cultivating the land on the tiller’s day is deemed to have purchased it, subject to the statutory conditions; that purchase remains effective unless rendered ineffective in the manner provided by law, as explained in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay and Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade.

Sections 15 and 29 require a tenant’s surrender to be in writing and verified before the Mamlatdar, and prohibit a landlord from obtaining possession except through the prescribed procedure.

An invalid surrender does not extinguish the tenant’s right to possession: Babu Parasu Kaikadi (Dead) by LRs v. Babu (Dead) through LRs.

The Court also noted Section 40’s provision concerning continuation of tenancy upon a tenant’s death, but did not need to decide that issue independently.

The tenancy entry and the landlords’ own case showed that Dunda Karbhari was in possession and cultivation of the subject land on the tiller’s day; the authorities had not found that the statutory purchase was rendered ineffective or that the tenancy was lawfully terminated.

The MRT instead relied on other heirs’ statements about non-cultivation and the perceived improbability of the petitioners cultivating the land, thereby reassessing facts and overlooking the governing statutory provisions.

That approach exceeded the limited grounds of revision under Section 76.

Further, the petitioners were not joined in the ALT proceedings despite their relationship to Lilabai and the relevant succession entries; the ALT had made its decision without inquiry, solely on the affidavit before it.

The Court also held that any surrender or dispossession had to comply with Sections 15 and 29.

It restored the SDO’s order dated 8 June 2020 and dismissed Tenancy Case No. 08/2012; the Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.