JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Member of M.R.T. in the matter of MRTSH-III-9/86 (TEN.B. 85/86) Pune dated 11-3-1988 by which the learned Member of M.R.T. dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Collector, Solapur in the matter of Tenancy Appeal No. 64 of 1984. 2. The petitioner happens to be landlady in respect of Gut Nos. 578, 580-B situated at village Korphale, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur. She filed an application for getting the possession of the suit lands from respondent No. 1 pointing out that he happens to be a defaulter in respect of payment of the rent for three years when he did not pay the rent even after the intimations were issued to him. The tenancy Avval Karkun while deciding the said Tenancy Case No. 4 of 1981 concluded that the landlady (the present petitioner) had not issued intimations to the tenant (present respondent No. 1) within a period of three months of each default. He also held that the tenant was not in arrears of rent for any three years and, therefore, lastly he concluded that the landlady was not entitled to get the possession of the suit lands. The said judgment and order was challenged by the present petitioner, landlady, and it was decided by the Assistant Collector, Solapur in the first round of battle of litigation. The Assistant Collector, Solapur confirmed the said judgment and order. The appeal was dismissed. The said judgment and order was impugned by the present petitioner by filing a revision before the M.R.T. The learned Member of M.R.T. by his judgment and order remanded back the matter to trial Court/Avval Karkun, Barshi directing him to hold enquiry in detail. 3. In the second round of battle of litigation, Avval Karkun, Barshi recorded the same type of findings. The said judgment and order was challenged before the Assistant Collector who confirmed it. In the revision application the Member of M.R.T. also confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Collector and that has been assailed by the present petition by the petitioner. 4. The said judgment and order was challenged before the Assistant Collector who confirmed it. In the revision application the Member of M.R.T. also confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Collector and that has been assailed by the present petition by the petitioner. 4. Shri Kudle, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Avval Karkun, Barshi did not take into consideration that while remanding the matter to him, the Member of M.R.T. had directed him to make the enquiry only in respect of the amount which was to be recovered from the tenant and, therefore, Avval Karkun had exceeded his jurisdiction and power in recording the findings against the present petitioner holding that she did not give the intimation for each default within a period of three months after the said default. He submitted that the same sort of error was repeated by the Assistant Collector and the learned Member of M.R.T. committed the error of law grossly when he dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner. He submitted that the writ of certiorari be issued in favour of the petitioner in view of the gross error of law committed by the Member of M.R.T. 5. Shri Mandlik, Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, pointed out that Avval Karkun, Barshi held the enquiry in proper perspective as all the orders passed by the Avval Karkun, Barshi and Assistant Collector, Solapur were set aside by the Member of M.R.T. and Avval Karkun was directed to make a detailed enquiry. He submitted that after detailed enquiry, Avval Karkun, Barshi recorded the correct findings which are consistent with material on record. He submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it be dismissed. 6. Shri Kudle is in error in misreading the judgment and order which was passed by the Member of M.R.T. in the first round of battle of litigation and, therefore, he committed the error in presuming that Avval Karkun, Barshi had exceeded his jurisdiction and committed the error of law in recording the findings and passing the judgment and order against the present petitioner. It is pertinent to note that by his judgment and order, the Member of M.R.T. had set aside the judgments and orders which were passed by Avval Karkun, Barshi and Assistant Collector, Solapur in the first round of battle of litigation and by his order Avval Karkun, Barshi was directed to hold the detailed enquiry. Shri Kudle is also in error in coming to the conclusion that the observations made by the Member of M.R.T. in dealing with money order coupons were binding on Avval Karkun, Barshi. He is also in error to come to the conclusion that in view of that, Avval Karkun, Barshi was bound to come to a conclusion that those money order coupons were fake and were not depicting a correct picture. It is not so. The learned Advocate is in error in making the submissions. 7. It is pertinent to note that the conclusions drawn by the Member of M.R.T. in the initial round of the litigation in respect of those money order coupons were totally wrong and uncalled for. There was no material for him to draw such conclusions. When he had set aside the judgments and orders passed by Avval Karkun, Barshi and Assistant Collector, Solapur and had directed Avval Karkun, Barshi to hold enquiry in detail, those observations were not binding on Avval Karkun, Barshi and he was at liberty to go for detailed enquiry and to draw his own conclusions independently based on material on record which was collected by him during the said enquiry. 8. The judgment which has been passed by Avval Karkun, Barshi shows that after considering the evidence on record he rightly concluded that only one intimation was given in respect of the defaults alleged by the landlady against the tenant. The provisions of section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act provides that separate intimation has to be given by the landlord or landlady for each default and that too within a period of three months of such default. After such compliance, thereafter only, the landlord or landlady can claim the possession from the tenant in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The onus is always on the landlord or landlady to prove such compliance. In this case landlady failed in it. Therefore, the judgment of Avval Karkun, Barshi was correct, proper and consistent with material on record. The onus is always on the landlord or landlady to prove such compliance. In this case landlady failed in it. Therefore, the judgment of Avval Karkun, Barshi was correct, proper and consistent with material on record. That has been confirmed by the Assistant Collector, Solapur after careful scrutiny of the material on record and after examination of the judgment and order passed by Avval Karkun, Barshi. The Member of M.R.T. has examined the record and those two judgments and has rightly dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner. When there are consistent findings of facts recorded by the two forums below which has been confirmed by M.R.T., how this petition can be allowed while exercising the jurisdiction by this Court in view of Article 227 of the Constitution of India? Answer would be no from all corners. Thus, petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed. -----