JUDGMENT S.P. Kukday, J.
1. This petition challenges the order dated 5-6-1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, deciding third party application.
2. The petitioner had filed Tenancy Case No. 89 of 1988 in the Court of Tenancy Awal Karkun, Kopargaon, under Section 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act for declaration of his status as a tenant qua the land Survey Nos. 452/2B and 456/1B situated at Kokamthan Taluka Kopargaon District Ahmednagar.
3. During the pendency of the tenancy case, respondent No. 1 filed an application to the Tahsildar for joining her as a party to the proceedings because she had some interest in the property and the disputes in respect of the property were pending before the Civil Court. By his order dated 9-4-1989 the Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Kopargaon, rejected the said application. After this order was passed, the petitioner filed a caveat before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, on 1-6-1989 and the copy of the said caveat was sent to respondent No. 1 by registered post which was received on 30-5-1989. In spite of this, in the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 on 3-6-1989, the Sub-Divisional Officer, without issuing notice to the petitioner, ignoring the caveat and without hearing both the sides, passed the impugned order allowing the appeal and giving a direction that respondent No. 1 should be made a party to the tenancy proceedings in Case No. 89 of 1988 as per her application dated 9-5-1989. This order is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.
4. During the pendency of the petition, respondent No. 1 expired on 30-9-1999. Her heirs were not brought on record and therefore, an order was passed on 17-4-2003 by the Additional Registrar in respect of abatement of the Writ petition against respondent No. 1.
5. Respondent No. 2 also expired during the pendency of the petition. However, her legal representatives were brought on record. Subsequently, an order is passed by the Deputy Registrar dismissing the writ petition against respondent No. 2(d) for want of prosecution. Legal heirs of respondent No. 2 are served. They have, however, not appeared before the Court.
6. As the matter is old and raises a short point for determination which does not affect the rights of either party and therefore, the matter is taken up for hearing and is decided.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Advocate contends that in spite of the fact that caveat was filed and intimation was given to respondent No. 1, in the appeal notice was not served on the petitioner and he was not heard by the Sub-divisional Officer before passing the impugned order. The caveat is placed on the record. Once the caveat is filed, it was obligatory for the Sub-Divisional Officer not to pass any order without giving notice to the caveator during the relevant period. Even otherwise, the principles of natural justice require that no order should be passed without hearing the concerned parties. In the present case, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not even issued notices to the parties and has decided the appeal without hearing both the parties. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and will have to be set-aside. Thus the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 5-6-1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the matter after following due procedure and after hearing both the parties. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). However, in the circumstances of present case, there shall be no order as to costs.