JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. 1. The petitioners were elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat in 2014. The petitioner No. 2 is elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in August, 2016. The respondent No. 6 had filed a complaint before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad on 30th July, 2016 contending that the petitioners were disqualified from continuing as Members of Gram Panchayat as they had illegally leased out one room of their house to the Gram Panchayat for Anganwadi and were receiving monetary benefits in lieu thereof. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted his report dated 10th August, 2016. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer stated in his report that the petitioners had given the room for Anganwadi, only with intention of service to the needy students and element of any wrongful gain was not there. The respondent No. 6 simultaneously filed petition under Section 16 read with Clause (f) and (g) of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act before the Additional Collector praying that the petitioners be disqualified from continuing as Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. After the trial of the petition, the learned Additional Collector held that the petitioners were disqualified under clause (f) and (g) of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act from continuing as Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner in appeal which is dismissed by order dated 4th September, 2017. 2. The undisputed facts are: That one room owned by the mother of petitioner No. 1 is leased out for Anganwadi since prior to 2009. Initially, the rent was Rs. 200/- per month, then it was increased to Rs. 4,00/- per month, then Rs. 6,00/- per month and presently it is Rs. 1,000/- per month. It is undisputed that this amount of Rs.1,000/- is inclusive of the electricity charges and water taxes. According to the respondent No. 6, the petitioners are disqualified to continue as Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in view of the provisions of Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act as they are having share and interest in the returns i.e. lease money received from the Gram Panchayat. 3. Various submissions are made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 3. Various submissions are made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties. Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioners has pointed out explanation 1-A(iv) below sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act which lays down that a person shall not be disqualified under Clause (g) if such person is having any share or interest in any lease for a period not exceeding 10 years of any immovable property and before such lease or agreement is extended the Block Development Officer certifies that any other suitable premises were available to Panchayat on lease. As per the explanation 1A(iv) of the Act of 1958, there can't be disqualification under Clause (g) of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1958 only because the person is having any share or interest in any lease of immovable property, if the lease does not exceed 10 years. In the present case, the respondents have not been able to point out that the lease of the room in question was for the period of more than 10 years. The date on which the room in question was given on lease for Anganwadi is not on record. At the time of arguments, it is stated that the room is given on rent for Anganwadi since about 2009. The enquiry report dated 23rd November, 2016 submitted by the Extension Officer (Panchayat) and Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Wardha shows that petitioner No. 1 is receiving rent in respect of the room since April, 2011. In these facts, as there is nothing on record to show that the lease of the room is extended beyond 10 years without the certification by the Block Development Officer, as per the explanation 1A (iv) below sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, the petitioners cannot be disqualified under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. The subordinate Authorities have overlooked the provisions of explanation 1A (iv) below sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and it has resulted in the erroneous orders disqualifying the petitioners from continuing as Members and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 4. Hence, the following order: (i) The impugned orders are set aside. (ii) The petition filed by the respondent No. 6 under Section 16 read with Section 14(1)(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act is dismissed. 4. Hence, the following order: (i) The impugned orders are set aside. (ii) The petition filed by the respondent No. 6 under Section 16 read with Section 14(1)(f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act is dismissed. (iii) It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to continue as Members and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat till their tenure expires or the petitioners are removed by following the prescribed procedure of law. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.