JUDGMENT - Dr. UPASANI PRATIBHA, J.:---This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th October, 1985 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur in Revision Application dated 25th July, 1984 against the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, Kolhapur in Tenancy Appeal No. 57 of 1984 dated 30th March, 1984. 2. By the impugned judgment the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision application and thus, confirmed the findings of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, Kolhapur, who by his judgment and order dated 30th March, 1984, had confirmed the order of the Tahsilar, Chandgad in Tenancy Case No. 57 of 1984. 3. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows : The present respondent Ashok Baswant Navalgi made an application to the learned Tahsildar, requesting him for restoration of possession of the suit land under section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Act"), as he required the same for his bona fide personal use. The land stood in the name of Smt. Giravva widow of Raghu Hajam, who died in 1980, and Shri Dhondiba, the deceased father of the applicants. It was recorded in the Record of Rights, that they were protected tenants. The name of the respondent Ashok Baswant Navalgi came to be entered as an occupant in respect of the suit land by Mutation Entry No. 2029 dated 25th January, 1980 as a successor-in-title of the deceased Giravva under a Will executed on 31st July, 1962. The said Ashok Baswant Navalgi is the son of the sister of the deceased Giravva. 4. After the death of said Giravva on 25th January, 1980, who was holding a certificate under section 88-C of the Act, the respondent Ashok Baswant Navalgi gave a notice on 10th April, 1980 with an intention to terminate the tenancy of the petitioners, and thereafter, he applied for possession under section 33-B to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar held an enquiry in the matter being Tenancy Case No. 57 of 1980, and by his judgment and order dated 30th November, 1982, ordered that the possession of the suit land should be withdrawn from the petitioners and handed over to the respondent-landlord. 5. The Tahsildar held an enquiry in the matter being Tenancy Case No. 57 of 1980, and by his judgment and order dated 30th November, 1982, ordered that the possession of the suit land should be withdrawn from the petitioners and handed over to the respondent-landlord. 5. Being aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners filed appeal in the Court of the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, Kolhapur, who, after hearing both the parties, rejected the said appeal and confirmed the order of the lower Court by his judgment and order dated 30th March, 1984. 6. The case of the petitioners is that though there is a concurrent finding of all the three courts in favour of the respondent-landlord, the provisions of section 27 of the Act were not taken into consideration by any of the courts. Mr. Bandivadekar, appearing for petitioners, relied upon A.I.R 1998 S.C. 3229, (Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi v. Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi)1, to substantiate his argument that no transfer by way of assignment of interest in land would be made by the tenant, and that, if such a transfer is made, it is not valid. He also relied upon judgment of this Court reported in 1998(2) Bom.C.R. 563 , (Dagadu Rama v. Pandurang Govind)2. In this case, the landlady who was a widow on 1st April, 1957, transferred the tenanted agricultural land during period of disability. Our High Court in this case, held that such a transfer was illegal and the transferee had to be treated as a stranger. Mr. Bandivadekar also relied upon another judgment of this High Court dated 15th September, 1998 (Coram : D.K. Deshmukh, J.) in Writ Petition No. 3796 of 1984 to substantiate his argument that provisions of section 27 of the Act, which prohibit sub-division, sub-letting and assignment, except as provided in section 32-F of the Act, must be considered. 7. Now, in view of the fact that provisions of section 27 of the Act are not considered by any of the authorities below for deciding the validity of the assignment by way of Will, the matter will have to be remanded back for considering the validity of the alleged Will executed by the said Smt. Giravva. It also appears that provisions of section 33-B(5)(c) of the Act also are not considered. Hence, evidence will have to be led. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds. It also appears that provisions of section 33-B(5)(c) of the Act also are not considered. Hence, evidence will have to be led. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds. The orders passed by Tahsildar, Chandgad, Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, Kolhapur, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, are set aside. The matter is remanded back to Tahsildar, Chandgad for proceeding in accordance with law with Tenancy Case No. 57 of 1980, as expeditiously as possible, since the matter is very old. Petition allowed. -----