JUDGMENT - BOBDE S.A., J.:—Heard Shri Mohta, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Badiye, the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2.This petition is by tenants of agricultural land admeasuring 9 hectors 24 ares situated at Dhotra Jagir, Tahsil Karanaja, District Akola. The petitioners are the tenants of the respondent trust, which is called Masjid Sansthan, Kamargaon represented by its Managing Trustees i.e. the respondents. It appears that the petitioners did not pay any rent since 1959-60 till the year 1980-81, amounting to Rs. 2376/- to the respondents. The respondents, therefore, issued notice dated 3-11-1981 to the petitioners under section 19 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent within three months from the receipt of notice. This notice was received by the petitioners on 5-11-1981, but it was not complied with. The respondents, therefore, applied for termination of tenancy under section 19 read with 30(1) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 3.The tahsildar, Karanja held that the petitioners have not paid any rent since 1959-60 observing non-compliance of the notice dated 3-11-1981 by which the respondents demanded the arrears of rent. The tahsildar allowed the application holding that the petitioners are in arrears of rent since 1959-60. The tahsildar also required the petitioners to pay the same to the respondent-trust within a period of three months, as required by section 30(1) of the Tenancy Act. The tahsildar further stipulated that in case the arrears were not paid, the tenancy shall stand terminated and the respondents would be entitled to possession of the said land under section 36(2) of the Tenancy Act. This order was passed on 21st July, 1986. The petitioners preferred a revision before the S.D.O. Murtizapur. On 21-8-1987 the S.D.O. Murtizapur granted stay to the execution of the order of the tahsildar. By this time, three months granted by the tahsildar to clear the arrears of rent had expired without compliance. 4.The S.D.O. by order dated 26-8-1987 allowed the petitioners revision on the ground that the phrase "failed to pay in a year" acting under section 19(1) contemplates that the arrears of rent must be only in respect of particular year in which notice is given and not arrears prior to that year. 4.The S.D.O. by order dated 26-8-1987 allowed the petitioners revision on the ground that the phrase "failed to pay in a year" acting under section 19(1) contemplates that the arrears of rent must be only in respect of particular year in which notice is given and not arrears prior to that year. Since the respondents had pleaded non-payment since the year 1959-60, the S.D.O. found that there amounts did not constitute "failure to pay in any year", and therefore, reversed the permission to terminate the tenancy and the order for eviction of the petitioners. The respondent trust carried the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that even if section 19 is construed in the manner construed by the tahsildar, there was a clear failure to pay the rent for the year 1980-81, the petitioners not having complied with the notice dated 3-11-1981 issued by the respondents for termination of tenancy for not making the payment of rent for the year 1980-81. The M.R.T. took the view that in the notice there was no demand of arrears of rent in the notice but that did not make any difference. It is that order which is assailed by the petitioners before this Court. 5.Mr. Mohta, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had not been served with notice dated 3-11-1981 and therefore, the tenant was not validly terminated. This submission is not correct. The M.R.T. clearly had found that the petitioners have received notice dated 3-11-1981 on 5-11-1981. There is also support for the finding that the petitioners received notice from the order of the tahsildar, who has referred to the acknowledgments Ex. A-4 and A-3 on record. 6.The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondents are not entitled to a order for eviction since the petitioners have not got opportunity to avail of time to clear the arrears of rent. This opportunity according to petitioners is provided by law namely section 30 of Bombay Tenancy Act. A-4 and A-3 on record. 6.The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondents are not entitled to a order for eviction since the petitioners have not got opportunity to avail of time to clear the arrears of rent. This opportunity according to petitioners is provided by law namely section 30 of Bombay Tenancy Act. The relevant portion, which reads as follows :-- "Section 30: "Where any tenancy of any land held by any tenant is terminated for non-payment of rent and the landlord files any proceeding to eject the tenant, the tahsildar shall call upon the tenant to tender to the landlord the rent in arrears together with the costs of the proceeding, within three months from the date of the order, and if the tenant complies with such order, the tahsildar shall, lieu in of making an order for ejectment, pass an order directing that the tenancy had not been terminated and thereupon the tenant shall hold the land as if the tenancy had not been terminated: Provided that, if the tahsildar is satisfied that in consequence of total or partial failure of crops or similar calamity the tenant has been unable to pay the rent due, the tahsildar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the arrears of rent together with the costs of the proceedings if awarded, shall be paid within one year from the date of the order and that if before the expiry of the said period, the tenant fails to pay the said arrears of rent and costs, the tenancy shall be deemed to be terminated and the tenant shall be liable to be evicted. (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any tenant whose tenancy has been terminated for non-payment of rent, if such tenant has failed for any three years to a period of three months on each default." 7.On a plain reading of the aforesaid section, it is clear that law requires the tahsildar to tender to the landlord the rent of arrears within three months from the date of order, and if the tenant complies with such order, the tahsildar is not entitled to pass an order of ejectment. There is no dispute by the petitioners that tahsildar did give time for three months to the petitioners to pay rent. There is no dispute by the petitioners that tahsildar did give time for three months to the petitioners to pay rent. The contention is that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to clear the arrears of rent in view of the fact that there was stay granted by the S.D.O. This contention is wholly untenable in view of the following. 8.The tahsildar passed the order and granted three months time to clear the arrears on 21st July, 1986. The S.D.O. granted stay on 28-1-1987. Obviously, much more than three months had passed from the date of tahsildars order. Therefore, on expiry of three months from the date of tahsildars order, the petitioners became liable for eviction on non-payment of arrears of rent. 9.The last contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the M.R.T. ought to have remanded the matter to the S.D.O. because the S.D.O. decided the matter purely on the question of law. Perusal of the order of S.D.O. shows that the decision is not purely on the question of law. The S.D.O. has dealt with the facts of the case and has come to the conclusion that there was no failure "to pay in any year". 10.Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. -----