JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J. :---Heard Mr. Naik for the petitioner and Mr. Rane for the respondents. 2. A short point is involved in this petition which is filed by the tenant and that is, whether there was compliance by the tenant of section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). 3. Admittedly, the petitioner claims to be a tenant for the year 1973-74. There is no dispute that in 1973-74 he was minor and so called agreement of lease or tenancy was entered into on his behalf by his guardian. The tenant gave a notice of his intention to purchase this land under section 32-O of the Tenancy Act on 2-8-1974 and thereafter filed an application for purchasing the land on 2-9-1975. 4. In this back ground it is contended that the purchase price was fixed and tenant paid the purchase price of Rs. 6,000/- to the landlords. However, the original landlord died on 6-1-1975 and about seven years thereafter his heirs i.e. the present respondents challenge the order under section 32-O of the Tenancy Act on the grounds that firstly, the tenant being minor in 1973-74, no statutory rights could be created in favour of the tenant as the contract of tenancy, if at all there with the minor, was void. Secondly, it was contended that if at all the tenant wanted to exercise his rights under section 32-O of the Tenancy Act, it was incumbent on the tenant to apply for purchase of land within one year of the commencement of tenancy and before doing that he was under obligation to give an intimation to the landlord within one year of the commencement of the tenancy as provided by sub section (IA) of section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. According to the landlords, there was no compliance to this mandatory provision, and therefore, the order passed in favour of the minor, being an order without jurisdiction, was liable to be set aside. 5. On behalf of the tenant an objection regarding limitation was raised before the Appellate Authority. That objection was allowed and the appeal filed by the landlords was dismissed. The landlords thereafter challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Kolhapur in appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by Revision No. MRT-KP-151 of 1984. 5. On behalf of the tenant an objection regarding limitation was raised before the Appellate Authority. That objection was allowed and the appeal filed by the landlords was dismissed. The landlords thereafter challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Kolhapur in appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by Revision No. MRT-KP-151 of 1984. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (herein after referred to as the M.R.T.) allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by both the courts below and cancelled the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner under section 32-M of the Tenancy Act. This is the order against which the present petition is filed. 6. Even though two questions are involved in this petition viz. whether there could be a creation of tenancy i.e. tenancy arising out of a contract between the landlords and minor tenant? and whether there was a compliance to section 32-O of the Tenancy Act? 7. Counsel for the petitioner made a submission regarding the compliance of section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. According to him, the notice was given by the tenant of his intention to purchase the land and since the purchase price was fixed and paid by the tenant to the landlord, it was not open to the landlord or his heirs to challenge the order after a period of 7-8 years and M.R.T. erred in not considering the objection regarding limitation seriously. 8. No doubt there is a delay on the part of the landlord in filing the appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer against the order dated 17-9-1975 under section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. However, if on the face of it the order can be said to be without jurisdiction and palpably wrong, then M.R.T. was justified in not considering the objection regarding limitation. It is clear from the facts borne out by the record and submissions made by the Counsel for the respondents that the tenancy in this case is created after the tiller's day. It is not the case of the tenant that his father or parents or some of his relatives were the tenants and he has inherited tenancy right from them. His specific case is of contractual tenancy from 1973-74 when he was minor and less than three years of age. It is not the case of the tenant that his father or parents or some of his relatives were the tenants and he has inherited tenancy right from them. His specific case is of contractual tenancy from 1973-74 when he was minor and less than three years of age. If this is so and since there is no dispute about it, the objection of the Counsel for the respondent that no contractual tenancy can be created in favour of the minor, requires serious consideration as it goes to the root of exercise of jurisdictional powers by Mamlatdar in acting under section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. In view of this legal position, the M.R.T. is perfectly justified in not considering the objection regarding the limitation raised by the present petitioner in respect of the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the landlord. 9. So far as compliance to section 32-O of the Tenancy Act is concerned, the notice or intimation was given by the tenant to the landlord on 2-8-1975 and he filed an application for purchase of the land under section 32-O on 2-9-1975 on the basis of his tenancy for the year 1973-74. 10. If a tenant claims right under section 32-O of the Tenancy Act, he has to apply within the limitation prescribed in this section i.e. either in subsection (1) or sub-section (1-A) of section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. For that his pleadings are required to be very specific. He must state the date of commencement of tenancy i.e. the date on which the landlord agreed to lease the land to him. He must state which was the agricultural year for which the land was leased and thereafter he must show that he had given intimation to the landlord as required by sub-section (1-A) of section 32-O within one year of the commencement of tenancy and that he applied for purchase of land within that year itself, because sub-section (1) of section 32-O enjoying upon the tenant to exercise his right for purchase "within one year from the commencement of such tenancy" and sub-section (1-A) of section 32-O requires to give an intimation on behalf of the tenant to the landlord within the period specified in that sub-section (1). 11. 11. Both these provisions of section 32-O of the Tenancy Act make it obligatory on the tenant to give an intimation or notice within one year of the commencement of tenancy and also to apply within one year of the commencement of tenancy for purchase of land. It is, therefore, clear that the notice or intimation and application for purchase are required to be made while agreement of tenancy is continuing and has not come to an end, if at all, it is for one year. 12. In the instant case, admittedly, the tenant did not give any notice or intimation at any time during the agricultural year 1973-74. It is also clear that he did not apply under section 32-O of the Tenancy Act within agricultural year of 1973-74, but what is borne out from the record is that the tenant gave the notice on 2-8-1975 and applied for purchasing the land under section 32-O on 2-9-1975. Both exercises being done by him after the agricultural year 1973-74. 13. As to whether the lease in favour of the minor under the Tenancy Act is valid or void, it does not appear that this Court should go into that question, particularly when the M.R.T. has rejected the contention of the petitioner regarding right of land as a tenant. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the order of the M.R.T. clearly shows that the case of the tenant has been rejected as being suspicious and unreasonable. Since the tenant has lost before the M.R.T. on merits i.e. regarding legality, validity and existence of his right as lessee in the land, the question whether the agreement of lease in favour of the minor is legal or void need not be considered. 14. It is pertinent to note that in the original application filed under section 32-O, there are no particulars regarding the date on which the tenancy agreement was entered into and concluded between the guardian of the tenant and then landlord. 15. For all these reasons the contentions of the Counsel for the petitioner regarding non-applicability of section 32-O or regarding compliance of section 32-O of the Tenancy Act can not be accepted. Since that was the only point mainly stressed, no fault can be found with the order of the M.R.T. Consequently the following order :-- :ORDER: The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim stay stands vacated. Since that was the only point mainly stressed, no fault can be found with the order of the M.R.T. Consequently the following order :-- :ORDER: The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim stay stands vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.