Judgment

Misra, J.-The short question raised in this appeal is: whether on the facts and circumstances of this case when in a proceeding under Sec­tion 8 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, the respondent No. 1 in terms of the compromise declared himself not to be the tenant of the disputed land and in pursuance thereof his name being deleted by the order of the Tahsildar under Section 8(3) could the Tahsildar in exercise of his suo motu under Section 49B after lapse of about 11 years declare respondent No. 1 to be tenant under the said Act?

2. In the present appeal respondent No. 1 claims to be tenant of the suit land of which appellants and respondent No. 2 claim to be the landlord/owner. To appreciate the controversy it is necessary to give certain facts. On 20th March 1959 appellants’ predecessors filed an application before the Tenancy Tahsildar for deleting the name of respondent No. 1 from the list of tenants to correct the records prepared under Section 8(1) of the 1958 Act. According to the said application the suit land is owned and possessed by the applicants and they have been cultivating it personally by engaging Saldars and labourer