JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:--- The order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 6-9-1983 affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati on 31-3-1980 and the order passed by Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Purandhar on 30-6-1978 is a subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. Shri Abdul Rehaman Sajanbhai Bagwan (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) was tenant of the present respondent Shri Yeshwant Raghavendra Purandhare in respect of various lands including Gat No. 892 situated at village Khalad. On Tiller's day i.e. 1-4-1957, the tenant became deemed purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended from time to time. The tenant purchased the lands of which he became deemed purchaser except Gat No. 892 which he declined to purchase. As a result thereof the purchase relating to Gat No. 892 became ineffective. It appears that in the year 1968, the former tenant surrendered the possession of Gat No. 892 and the former landlord was put in possession. The proceedings were initiated under section 32-P of the Tenancy Act and after service the former landlord as well as the former tenant appeared before the Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Purandhar. In the proceedings the former tenant did not dispute the factum of surrender of possession of Gat No. 892 in favour of former landlord and the fact that after the former landlord was put in possession he was cultivating the land personally. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 32-P were disposed of by Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Purandhar by holding that possession of the former landlord over Gat No. 892 was proper and that in the revenue record the name of the former tenant appearing as Kabjedar be deleted and in its place name of former landlord be substituted. The order passed by the Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Purandhar on 30-6-1978 was challenged by the former tenant in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division without any success and the S.D.O., Baramti Division dismissed the appeal. In the meanwhile the former tenant had died and his legal representatives challenged the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Purandhar in revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal also dismissed the revision on 6-10-1983 giving rise to the present writ petition. 3. Mr. In the meanwhile the former tenant had died and his legal representatives challenged the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Purandhar in revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal also dismissed the revision on 6-10-1983 giving rise to the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Sali, the learned Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of deceased former tenant submitted that the surrender made by the former tenant in favour of the former landlord in the year 1968 was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the said surrender was no surrender in the eye of law. According to Mr. Sali, the possession could have only been surrendered in the mode and manner provided in section 15 of the Tenancy Act and since the surrender was not in accord with section 15, the said surrender has no legal effect and, therefore, the former tenant or for that matter after his death his legal representatives are entitled to restoration of possession. In support of his contentions Mr. Sali relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in (Amrit Bhikali Kale others v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade another)1, 1983(3) S.C.C. 437 . (Mohamed Abdul Naik v. Anant Hari Nadgonda)2, Tenancy Law Reporter 1975 Vol. XXIII Page 83, and (Mahadeo Sitaram v. Ramachandra S. Yadav)3, 1973 Vol. XXI Tenancy Law Reporter, page 79. 4. Though the argument advanced by Mr. Sali at its first blush appeared to be attractive but on deeper scrutiny it is found to have no substance. The Tenancy Act was substantially overhauled by Amending Act 15 of 1957 to make tiller the owner of the land from 1-4-1957 rightly and aptly described as tiller's day. Every tenant of land to which the Tenancy Act was applicable became owner by operation of law. Thus there is no dispute that on 1-4-1957 the then tenant became deemed purchaser of the entire land which was in his possession as tenant including Gat No. 892. When he became deemed purchaser, obviously, the relationship of landlord and tenant came to be extinguished. That is by statutory fiction on tiller's day when the tenant acquired the status of deemed purchaser he ceased to continue as tenant. On acquisition of status of deemed purchaser by the tenant his character as tenant came to be extinguished since law does not contemplate dual status of tenant as well as deemed purchaser (owner). That is by statutory fiction on tiller's day when the tenant acquired the status of deemed purchaser he ceased to continue as tenant. On acquisition of status of deemed purchaser by the tenant his character as tenant came to be extinguished since law does not contemplate dual status of tenant as well as deemed purchaser (owner). Therefore, section 15 of the Tenancy Act cannot be attracted which provides for termination of tenancy by surrender by a tenant in favour of landlord. After 1-4-1957 since Abdul Rehaman Sajanbhai Bagwan ceased to be tenant over Gat No. 892, the surrender of possession by him in the year 1968 was not an act of termination of tenancy by a tenant by surrender thereof. Section 32-P of the Tenancy Act provides for power of the Tribunal to resume and dispose of land not purchased by tenant. It provides that where the purchase of any land by tenant under section 32 becomes ineffective, the Tribunal may either suo moto or on an application, direct that such land shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (2) of section 32 which includes the summary eviction of the former tenant or the surrender of the land to the former landlord. It is true the surrender of land to the former landlord needs to be through the process cotemplated by section 32-P of the Tenancy Act and surrender of land comprising of Gat No. 892 by the former tenant to the former landlord in the year 1968 was strictly speaking not in conformity with the said process but the fact remains that thereafter suo motu proceedings were initiated by Agriculture Lands Tribunal under section 32-P and Tribunal did approve such surrender of land to former landlord since sale in favour of former tenant was rendered ineffective because he (the tenant) refused to purchase the land. The tribunal held that former landlord is entitled to retain possession of Gat No. 892 and directed necessary entry to be made in revenue record. The surrender of land Gat No. 892 by the former tenant to the former landlord which was ultimately approved by Agriculture Lands Tribunal can be taken to be surrender of land to the former landlord through the process of ALT. The order passed by A.L.T. has been affirmed by S.D.O. in appeal and by M.R.T. in revision. 5. The surrender of land Gat No. 892 by the former tenant to the former landlord which was ultimately approved by Agriculture Lands Tribunal can be taken to be surrender of land to the former landlord through the process of ALT. The order passed by A.L.T. has been affirmed by S.D.O. in appeal and by M.R.T. in revision. 5. The judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not relate to the controversy in hand and have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case and , therefore, I do not deem it necessary to deal with the said judgments. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and impugned in the present writ petition affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Purandhar cannot be faulted. 7. The writ petition accordingly has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.