R.A. Jahagirdar, J.
1. This petition need not be treated with any exaggerated respect because it is by a tenant who has been guilty of default in the payment of arrears of rent not only under the contract of lease but also under the orders of the Court. The respondents are the landlords and the petitioner is the tenant of two lands together measuring 7 acres 2 gunthas situated at village Atogaon in Radhanagari Tahsil of Kolhapur District. Admittedly the suit lands are leased to the petitioner for the cultivation of sugar-cane. He committed default in the payment of rent for three years, namely 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1970-71. The proceedings under section 29 read with sections 14 and 25 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Tenancy Act', were taken by the respondents and ultimately they culminated in the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal of Kolhapur in Revision Application No. MRT.KP. 126/76 passed on 15th February, 1977. By the said order the Revenue Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2419.18 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 590.22 paid by him to the landlords within 3 months from the date of the order. In the event of failure of such payment, self-operative direction was given that the tenant shall be evicted from the land and the possession of the land shall be restored to the landlords.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited this amount within 3 months from the date of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. He deposited in the Government treasury the amount on 16th May, 1977 which has been found by the three authorities below to be two days later then the date on which he was to pay the amount. The respondents, therefore, filed an application, being Misc. Tenancy Application No. 5/77, for execution of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The facts of the litigation and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were set out in details by the respondents in their application. The petitioner filed a written statement in which he contended, among other things, that he had gone to the second respondent to pay the amount but the amount was not accepted. The landlord examined himself on oath and denied that the petitioner had come to him for paying the amount on 9th May, 1977. The petitioner did not examine himself on oath.
3. The Tahsildar of Radhanagari by his judgment and order dated 7th June, 1977 directed that the possession of the lands be restored to the respondents. This order was confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Division of Kolhapur by his judgment and order dated 30th August, 1977 in Tenancy Appeal No. 70 of 1977 preferred by the petitioner. This order was further confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its detailed judgment given on 29th April, 1978 in Revision Application No. MRT.KP. 340/77 which is now the subject-matter of challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
4. It had been urged in the courts below that though the amount was to be deposited on or before 14th May, 1977, the same could not be done because 14th May, 1977 was holiday being Second Saturday of the month and 15th was also a holiday being Sunday. The amount thus deposited on 16th May, 1977 should be held to have been deposited within the time ordered by the Court in view of the provisions contained in section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. This contention has been rejected by the authorities below and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has in my opinion given correct reasons for the same. Mr. Gole has urged the same point with some persistence. I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention on behalf of the petitioner that section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act is applicable to the facts of this case. Section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act provides that where, by any Bombay Act or Maharashtra Act made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day, the Act or proceeding shall be considered as having been done in due time if it is done on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open. Naturally this section is inapplicable because it is applicable only to any act or proceeding directed or allowed to be done or taken by an Act of the Legislature and not by an order of the Court. In the instant case what was directed to be done was by the order of the Court though under the provisions of section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
5. This prompted Mr. Gole to argue that though the order is by the Court is done under the provisions of the Bombay Act and the period which the Court has provided for doing the act was the period mentioned in the Act itself and, therefore, it should be held that what was directed to be done by the Court was necessarily the act to be done under the Act. I cannot subscribe to this view. Even when a period is fixed by an order of the Court under the provisions of law it does not mean that the period is fixed by the law; it is still fixed by the order of the Court itself. In my opinion, therefore, the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal does not attract the provisions of the section 11 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. It may also be noted that section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy Act does not insist upon, indeed it does not provide for the payment of amount of rent into Government treasury. It requires the Court to pass an order that the amount shall be paid to the landlord within the time mentioned therein. The order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is also explicit that the petitioner shall pay the amount within three months from the date of the order. It does not require him to deposit the amount into the Government treasury. It has not been shown to the authorities below that the petitioner had tendered the required amount to the respondents as directed by the Revenue Tribunal. The payment into the Government treasury is not the prescribed procedure for payment at all and, therefore, the payment made by the petitioner in the instant case could not be regarded as compliance with the directions given by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
6. An attempt was made before me to establish that the amount was tendered to one of the landlords. I have already enumerated briefly the stages of the proceedings in the Court of the first instance which would indicate that the tender of the amount to any of the landlords has not been established at all. Moreover, neither in the appeal Court below nor before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has it been contended that there was an attempt to comply with the earlier order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by tendering the amount to the landlords.
7. Mr. Gole, thereafter proceeded to mention hat section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code allows the payment to be made on a day subsequent to the day fixed if the next day fixed is Sunday or other authorised holiday. Section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code finds its place in Chapter XI dealing with realisation of land revenue and other revenue demands. I have no hesitation in holding that this section is wholly irrelevant to the determination of the question before me because what is required is not compliance with section 202 but with the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
8. In the result, this petition must fail. Rule is discharged with costs.