(1) THE short question for consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment of the High court is whether the appellant was a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.

(2) THE respondent instituted a suit for possession alleging that the appellant trespassed in the suit property and the appellant claimed that under an oral arrangement he was cultivating the land as tenant in 1962-63. It appears that the appellant had also issued a notice under Section 43 of the Act, in December 1962 for purchasing the landlords rights. The suit was instituted in 1963.

(3) THE question of tenancy was referred to the authority under Section 125 of the Act. The Naib Tehsildar upheld the claim of the appellant as tenant but on appeal the Sub-Divisional Officer negatived the same on a consideration of the evidence in the case. The appellant preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal under Section 111 of the Act. The tribunal on a reappraisal of the evidence restored the order of the original authority. The respondent aggrieved by that order moved the High court for quashing the order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High court by the impugned judgment quashed the decision of the Revenue tribunal holding that the tribunal has exceeded its powers in upsetting the finding of fact arrived at by the Sub- Divisional Officer, the ultimate fact-finding authority.

(4) THE decision is assailed before us mainly on the ground that the tribunal has under Section 113 of the Act the power to pass any order and that the materials considered by the tribunal justify the conclusion arrived at.

(5) THE power of revision is to be exercised by the tribunal under Section 111 of the Act. The three grounds for attack of an order made by the Collector have been enumerated. The order of the Collector must be one contrary to law or it should be a case where the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law; or there was a substantial defect in following the procedure provided by this Act, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Section 113 provides that the tribunal in revision under Section 111 may confirm, modify or rescind the order in appeal or revision or its execution or may pass such other order as may seem legal and just in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This section only states that if the tribunal can satisfy that the order is one falling under any one or more of grounds enumerated under Section 111 it may pass appropriate orders in confirming or reversing the order or remitting back the case for fresh disposal or make such other incidental or consequential orders. The revisional jurisdiction has necessarily to be exercised within the power defined in Section 111. In a case where any one of the three grounds is not made out the tribunal in exercise of the power of revision cannot upset the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer.

(6) THE learned counsel for the appellant referred to the decision in Rahimatulla Rahiman Sarguru v. Bapu Hari Mane. The court said in that case that the powers of revision entrusted to the tribunal under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, are practically identical with the second appellate powers of the High court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code before it was amended by Act 104 of 1976. Section 76 of the Bombay Act, 1948 corresponds to Section 111 of the 1958 Act. On the facts it was found that the Collector had acted contrary to law as the finding that the respondent was not in possession not as a tenant but as a purchaser was not based either on the pleading or on the evidence of the appellant-landlord.

(7) IN the present case, there is nothing on record to show that there has been any such misdirection by the Collector to justify the interference by the tribunal. The appellant claimed possession as tenant during 1962-63 and the claim was base