( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 30-11-1992. By the impugned order, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has reversed the finding of the last Court of facts which had held that the respondent is not a tenant in proceedings under section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the "act".

( 2 ) THE matter has a long history and the MRT appears to have remanded the matter back to the fact finding authority on five occasions in the past. It is not necessary to go into that part of the history of the matter in detail.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts are as follows :- the petitioners are brothers. They are the sons of the original landlord abdul Rehman Mulla who died in the year 1958 when they were about six years old. Their mother Jainabai re-married in 1961 and moved to another village. She has a sister Mariyam who is the mother of the respondent.

( 4 ) THIS matter relates to survey Nos. 12/4, 13/9 and 23/5 and 30/22a of village Jambhori, taluka and district Ratnagiri. The respondent had apparently been in cultivating possession of these lands. He appears to have been looking after other lands of the petitioners father such as lands at village Vatad. Being in possession, the respondent applied for being declared as a tenant under section 70 (b) of the Act. The Extra-Aval Karkun held him to be a tenant. The petitioners appealed against that order. The question of tenability of the appeal went upto the mrt and then came up to this Court. Thereafter, the appeal was heard by the collector, Ratnagiri, who held that the respondent is not a tenant by order dated 23-3-1977.

( 5 ) THE petitioners and the respondent both applied for revision of this order and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority who then confirmed the order of the Extra-Aval Karkun that he is a tenant.

( 6 ) THIS order was set aside by the MRT on the petitioners revision. The matter was then sent to the Collector who remanded the matter to the Extra-Aval karkun for disposal, in accordance with law. Even this order was challenged by the respondent by revision. In the revision, the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal himself on merits, in accordance with law. The Collector who heard the appeal confirmed the finding of the Extra-Aval karkun that the respondent was a tenant. This was again subjected to a revision. The MRT, in revision, found the order of the Collector vitiated, inter alia, on several counts. The MRT observed that the Collector wrongly put the onus to establish tenancy on the petitioners; he ought to have got the suspicious entries in v. F. 7/12 by sending for the original records. The MRT directed the Appellate court to record a clear finding whether the respondent was a contractual tenant and should reconsider the unusual observations made by the Collector that in konkan area, there is no practice of passing rent receipts. Thereafter, the respondent filed a Writ Petition which was dismissed on 3-8-1980 and the matter came up for decision before the appellate authority in the last round of litigation.

( 7 ) THE learned Collector, Ratnagiri, completely disbelieved the respondents claim that he was a tenant of the petitioners father, who died when they were minors. It is admitted in this case that there is no contractual tenancy. The appellate authority, therefore, decided the matter on other evidence available to it. The appellate authority rejected the respondents argument that he had paid rent to the petitioners mother, and after her remarriage, to the sister of Abdul rehman. The appellate authority declined to draw an adverse inference from the fact that the ladies had not deposed in Court. As regards the documentary evidence, the appellate authority found that the Akarphod patrak of village jambhori which had the names of all the tenants prepared on 8-11-1956 does not show the respondents