IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (TENANCY

SECTION) OF PUNE, AT PUNE

Tenancy Appeal no. ______/2023

Shri K. V. Allis Kisanmaharaj Sakhare through PA. Holder

and Trusty Chindambreshwar Kisanmaharaj Sakhare
Residing at Sadhak Ashram, Alandi Devachi
Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune …. Appellant

Vs.
1) Shri Mahatu Nana Molak
2) Shri Kailas Nana Molak
3) Deepak Nana Molak (Deceased)
3a) Savita Deepak Molak
3b) Chetan Deepak Molak
3c) Monika Pravin Kalokhe

4) Shri Pandit Nana Molak

All residing at: Chovisawadi, Charohli BK.
Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune … Respondent

Claim appeal U/s. 74 of the BT and AL act 1948.

May it please your Honor

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by with the judgment and order dated 16/11/2022 passed by

Addl. Tahasildar, Pimpri Chinchwad in file no. 32/G-SR-54/2006 New file no.

32/G/SR/08/2022, this application is being preferred along with a certified copy of the same
within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of knowledge amongst the following

ground as under:

1. That the judgment and order of the learned A.L.T. is not legal and valid hence the

operation of the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

2. That learned A.LT. has not followed the mandatory provision under the B.T. and A.LT.

Act 1948 as well as the rules of natural justice.

3. That learned ALT. has not given the proper opportunity to appellant hence bad in law.

4. That learned A.L.T. has been pleased to overlook purposefully the previous litigation as

well as the pending appeal before the Hon'ble MRT, Pune between the parties, therefore,

the order under appeal is without jurisdiction and the operation of the impugned order is

liable to be set aside.

5. That learned A.L.T. has malafidely passed the judgment, order by ignoring all the

procedure and facts on record.

6. That the learned A.L.T. has not conducted the proper inquiry into the matter and made

such hurry in the matter in order to favour the respondents when some of them are dead.

(Dead person) and thereby caused injustice to the appellant.

7. That the learned A.L.T. without making a pronouncement of the judgment issued a copy

to the respondent and the respondent submitted this copy before the MRT in the pending

proceeding in respect of the possession order passed in favour of the appellant by the

tenancy court and therefore after making enquiry the appellant found that the learned

A.L.T has passed the judgment without giving date and overlooking the stay order in

pending litigation before the MRT. Thereafter the appellant by making RTI application
obtained the certified copy of the judgment and order and received the copy of the same

and therefore from the date receiving of the copy the present appeal is within limitation.

It is submitted that the appellant received the same copy on 28/02/2023 and from this

date the present appeal is within limitation. It is further submitted that the delay is caused

due to lack of knowledge therefore the delay deserved to be condoned to meet the ends of

justice.

Hence it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Allow this application and stay the operation of the impugned order during the

pendency of this appeal.

b. The delay if any be kindly condoned in the interest of Justice.

c. Any other equitable relief, order be kindly granted/passed in favor of the appellant.

Place: Appellant
Date:

Through Advocate