S.M.HAJARNAVIS, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the landlords against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowing the application for revision filed by the tenant against the order passed by the tenancy Awal Karkun as affirmed by the District Deputy Collector for tenancy Appeals, Kolhapur. Dattatraya Ganesh Joshi, Vishwanath Narayan Joshi and Govind Sitaram Joshi who were cousins owned 1/3rd share each in Survey No. 124/1 situated at village Rajapur, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. It my be mentioned that the land was neither partitioned nor were the shares in the land demarcated. They filed three similar applications under section 88-C of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the "Tenancy Act). These applications were granted and a joint certificate was issued on 28th March, 1966. It was received by one Waman Vishwanath Joshi who was the agent of Vishwanath Narayan Joshi. In pursuance of this certificate, Dattatraya and Vishwanath gave notice of termination on 12th November, 1963 and initiated proceedings under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act on 11th December, 1963 in the Court of Tenancy Awal Karkun, Shirol. THIS application was dismissed on the ground that he landlords had not proved that they needed the land bona fide and also on the ground of limitation, in as much as the application was not filed within three months of the receipt of the certificate. The landlords thereafter filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Collector who allowed the application holding that the application was within time and sent back the case to the Tenancy Awal Karkun for fresh enquiry regarding the need of the landlords. After the remand, the tenancy Awal Karkun allowed the parties to lead further evidence and held that the landlords have established that they needed the land bona fide for their personal cultivation. He, therefore, allowed the application of the landlord to the extent of 2/3 share in the land. The tenant thereafter filed an appeal to the District Deputy Collector who dismissed it. The tenant then filed an application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which hold that the application before the Mamlatdar was barred by time. It was also held that the initial application ought not to have been granted by the Tenancy Awal Karkun as all the landlords have not made the application. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, therefore, allowed the application for revision and dismissed the landlords application filed before the Tenancy Awal Karkun. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Jathar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the application filed by the petitioners was barred by time. He submitted that the Special Deputy Collector has recorded the findings that the applications were within time and initially remanded the case to the Tenancy Awal Karkun. THIS point was not agitated at all after the remand and it was not open for the respondent to take up that point again before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Even on merit, Mr. Jathar urged that the application is within time as he has received the certificate on 12th November, 1963 and has filed the application on 11th December, 1963. In my opinion, this submission has substance and deserves to be accepted, but, that apart, I have already mentioned that the land was held by three cousins and that the land was not partitioned and they were holding the land in common. In view of the matter, it was not open for the land owners to apply for possession of 2/3 share in the land. I am fortified in my view by the decision of this Court in (Jinabi Haji Ramjan Shaikh v. Bakaji Bhau Mandalik) 63 Bom.L.R. 657 where this Court has observed : "If they hold the land as tenants-in-common, every one of them will have a defined share in the land, but until the land is partitioned, none of them can be said to be the owner or land of any specific part of it. Every one of them has an interest in every part of the land. All of them collectively are the landlords and the tenant is responsible for payment of rent to all of them. No one co-owner can be said to have leased any particular part of the land and consequently he cannot make an application for exemption of any part of the land from the provisions of sections. 32 to 32-R." To the same effect are the observations of Vaidya, J. in (Parvatibai Bhausaheb v. Sitabai Ganpat Chavan) 74 Bom.L.R. 142 where it is observed : "Hence it would be necessary for all of them to terminate the tenancy and apply for possession. It is well-settled that if they are holding the property as tenants-in-common, one of them alone cannot terminate the tenancy, and notice of termination must be given by all or on behalf of all." Here in this particular case the only two out of three landholders have issued the notice of termination and initiated proceedings and that too in respect of 2/3rd share of the land which was not demarcated. There is another aspect of this case. That is, during the proceedings Dattatraya died and his heirs have come on record and their need should have been really examined in the proceedings. They are not entitled for possession of the suit-filed on the basis of the bona fide need of their predecessor-in-title. Mr. Jathar made a reference section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but I do not think that this section has any application to the facts of this case. That being so, the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged with costs.;