JUDGMENT:- Challenge in this petition is to the judgment rendered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (for short, 'MRT') in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction available under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "B.T. & A.L. Act") whereby findings of Tenancy Tribunal and Appellate Tenancy Tribunal were reversed and original applicant-deceased Vishwanath was held to be tenant.

2. Deceased Vishwanath filed an application before the Tenancy Tribunal, Ahmednagar alleging that since 1953-54 he was in possession of Survey No.142 (Gat No.161), admeasuring 1 acre and 33 gunthas, situated at Village-Khandke as a tenant. According to him, the land in question was owned by one Pandurang Tatya Edke who had leased out the same to him. Original opponent Laxman inherited said land after death of landlord-Pandurang. Therefore, the application was filed against said Laxman for fixation of purchase price of the land in question. It was his case that he used to give crop share to the landlord. The landlord resides at Ahmednagar and never cultivated the land in question. Therefore, he claimed right to purchase the same as owner under Section 32-G of the B.T. & A.L. Act. The opponent-deceased Laxman resisted the application. The case of the deceased opponent-Laxman was that Uttam s/o. Tuka was his tenant and thereafter, the land in question was taken by him for cultivation. He denied that deceased applicant Vishwanath was the tenant of the land in question. He submitted that there was no written agreement of lease and there were never any receipts issued in favour of the applicant towards the rent. Consequently, he sought dismissal of the application.

3. The parties led certain evidence before the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tenancy Tribunal reached the conclusion that applicant Vishwanath failed to prove his tenancy rights. The Tenancy Tribunal further held that as on the tiller's day i.e. 1-4-1957 said Vishwanath was not in possession of the land in question and hence, he was not entitled to purchase the land under Section 32-G of the said Act. The findings of the Tenancy Tribunal were upheld by the appellate Tribunal i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar. Feeling aggrieved, applicant Vishwanath preferred Revision Petition (MRT-AH-XII-8/84 (TNC : B.299/84) : Pune. The MRT, Pune allowed the revision application and held that applicant Vishwanath was tenant of the land in question and hence remanded the application to the Tenancy Tribunal for determination of reasonable price of the land under Section 32G of the said Act.

4. Original opponent Laxman @ Bhaiyya filed the instant writ petition challenging the findings of the MRT. In the meanwhile, original petitioner Laxman @ Bhaiyya demised and came to be substituted by his legal representatives. So also, original respondent Vishwanath demised and came to be substituted by his legal representatives.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel Shri. S. D. Kulkarni for the petitioner would submit that the Tenancy Tribunal gave correct finding after appreciation of the evidence. He pointed out that there was no written lease agreement in favour of the deceased respondent. He also pointed out that the revenue record did not support contention of the deceased respondent regarding his possession as on the tiller's day. He would submit further that the MRT committed serious error while reversing findings of the Tenancy Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, by re-appreciating the facts. He contended that jurisdiction of the MRT is limited and it could not have been exercised when there was no error of law on the face of the record. He would rely upon "Maruti Bala Raut Vs. Dashrath Babu Wathare & Ors." [AIR 1974 SC 2051] and "Sita Ram Bhau Patil Vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (dead) by LRs. and Anr." [AIR 1977 SC 1712] in support of the proposition that the MRT ought not to have reappreciated the evidence. He further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document