JUDGMENT:- Heard elaborately. Rule was made on 11-1-2001. 2. The writ petitioner (for short tenant) feels aggrieved by the orders of learned Tahsildar, Karanja; S.D.O. Murtijapur and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short MRT), dated 27-3-1996, 27-3-1997 and 10th November, 1998, respectively. 3. The petitioner was a tenant of 1951-52 of an area admeasuring 8 hectare and 40 R, being land Survey No. 98, situated at village Donad Bk., Tq. Karanja, Distt. Akola. From the said land, area to the extent of half portion was restored to the landlady by virtue of orders dated 9-12-1977, recorded by the learned Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Murtizapur, which has reached finality and consequently there was division of the agricultural field. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is, in terms of section 52 of the Tenancy Act, the land lady, a widow, ought to have cultivated the field personally till 12 years, failing which the tenant was entitled to be restored with the said portion of the land. The land lady expired on 28-12-1992 and prior to her death, she has bequeathed the property by a Will Deed dated 17-6-1992 in favour of the respondent. It was informed by the petitioner, the respondent was not related or is not a legal representative of the land owner Smt. Subhadrabai. His possession is illegal and consequently in terms of section 52 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short Tenancy Act), the tenant is entitled for restoration of the property. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, purchase price and its payment are incidental. The rights in the widow in terms of section 46 of the Tenancy Act will not authorize the widow to divest the land received in terms of section 38 of the Tenancy Act. The learned counsel submits, the effect and operation of section 52 of the Tenancy Act having been not followed by the land owner, as she did not cultivate the land within one year from the date on which she took possession or cease to use it at any time for any of the aforesaid purposes, within 12 years from the date on which she took such possession, the tenant is entitled to restoration of the said land. 6. Reliance was placed to the judgment in the matter of Yeshwant Shamrao Deshpande and another vs. Laxman Kadtaji Takote, 1980 Mh.L.J. 221 by the respondent. 6. Reliance was placed to the judgment in the matter of Yeshwant Shamrao Deshpande and another vs. Laxman Kadtaji Takote, 1980 Mh.L.J. 221 by the respondent. In the said case, it was held by the learned Single Judge, for exercise of right under section 52 of the Tenancy Act, the possession must have been taken by the landlord in pursuance of termination as required by law under orders of Revenue Officer. The learned Single Judge held that the rights to get back the property indicated in terms of section 52 of the Tenancy Act would not be available to the tenant. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shankar Madhoji Nemade vs. Chisuji Janaji Bhadke and others, 1971 Mh.L.J. (SC) 197 = 1970(2) SCC 847 , particularly the observations in paragraph 34, which read as under; "34. The several aspects enumerated above have not been considered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court and it has rested its decision or applying section 52 by applying the sole test whether the landlord has taken possession before or after December 30, 1958. Such a test is not warranted by the provisions of both the statutes read together. A fair reading of section 52 also, in our opinion, leads to the same conclusion. Section 52 provides for (i) the tenancy being terminated under section 9 of the Berar Act; (ii) the landlord taking possession of such land on the basis of such termination of tenancy; (iii) the landlord failing to use the land for the purpose specified in the notice under section 9 of the Berar Act; (iv) failure to use the land for the purpose mentioned in the notice within one year from the date on which he took possession; (v) the landlord ceasing to use the land for the purpose for which he obtains possession within 12 years of his taking possession." 8. Basically, the proceedings having been terminated under section 38 of Tenancy Act, the relations of petitioner as a tenant and Subhadrabai as landlord ceased to operate. It is not in controversy, atleast from 1988 till 28-12-1992 till Subhadrabai expired, she was enjoying the property continuously. Basically, the proceedings having been terminated under section 38 of Tenancy Act, the relations of petitioner as a tenant and Subhadrabai as landlord ceased to operate. It is not in controversy, atleast from 1988 till 28-12-1992 till Subhadrabai expired, she was enjoying the property continuously. It was subsequently the petitioner learnt owing to mutation entry No. 682, dated 30-121992 that there was a Will Deed executed by Subhadrabai in favour of respondent on 17-6-1992. It is obvious, till the life time Subhadrabai cultivated the property as owner and she was justified in bequeathing the same being legally entitled to do so. Thus, possession was taken by respondent within a year, and land did not remain uncultivated. 9. Section 46, sub-clause (2) of the Tenancy Act, ordains, in case of widow to her successor in title on the expiry of one year from the date on which the widow's interest in the land ceases to exist. The term "successor in title" implies bequeathing the property by testamentary disposition. Will is a legal declaration of the intention of Subhadrabai with respect to her property which she desired to be carried into effect after her death. The respondent by virtue of registered Will Deed has become a successor in title and consequently was eligible to enjoy the property. Smt. Subhadrabai, the widow, was a disabled landlady and in terms of section 46, by virtue of bequeathing, the respondent has become the successor-in-title of the widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist. This is so, as indicated in the mutation entry referred hereinbefore. It is explicit, due to death of Subhadrabai, she ceases to have interest in the land and consequently the rights vest in the respondent. 10. Execution and registration of Will Deed by Subhadrabai dated 17-61992, was proved before the competent authorities. There was no challenge to the said Will Deed. The respondent - Nandkumar had pointed" prior to her death, Smt. Subhadrabai was staying with his father for a period of 22-23 years and thereafter for 45 years with him. She had no issue. She bequeathed the property in dispute to him. It was established that said Nandkumar has been using and cultivating the property. The respondent - Nandkumar had pointed" prior to her death, Smt. Subhadrabai was staying with his father for a period of 22-23 years and thereafter for 45 years with him. She had no issue. She bequeathed the property in dispute to him. It was established that said Nandkumar has been using and cultivating the property. In the situation, it cannot be said that after the death of Smt. Subhadrabai, she was required to cultivate to meet the requirement of 12 years from the aforesaid date. The authorities rightly found that there was no infringement of section 52 of the Tenancy Act, to restore the property in favour of the tenant. 11. The orders under challenge of the three authorities referred above, does not call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction, as they do not demonstrate any perversity or illegality in it. Consequently, writ petition sans merits. Dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed.