The court's power under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to correcting manifest and apparent errors resulting in grave injustice or gross failure of justice.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Both these petitions can be disposed by a common judgment & order since the parties are same and the dispute is in respect of two different Gat numbers situated at village Degaon, taluka North Solapur, district Solapur. Though the subject matter of the two writ petitions are in respect of two different lands, the arguments and the submissions made in both the petitions are same.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1(a) to (d). The petitioner was owner of lands Gat No. 44/3B/1A, admeasuring 3 Hectares & 40 Ares and Gat No. 40/1A, admeasuring 1 Hectare 23 Ares, both situated at village Degaon, taluka North Solapur, district Solapur. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 on 14th January, 1980. According to the petitioner, he was in need of money and though respondent No.1 was a money lender, he did not have money lending license and therefore, the said agreement was in reality a money lending agreement. According to the petitioner, after five years said lands were to be returned back to him. The agreement, therefore, was in essence a mortgage agreement. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on 17-2-1984 under S. 32(O) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), expressing his intention to exercise the right to purchase the suit land. The Tahsildar suo-motu initiated the proceedings under the said provision and declared that respondent No.1 was the tenant and issued a certificate to that effect. The petitioner preferred a revision application being Revision Application Nos. 8 of 1986 and 15 of 1986. Said revisions were allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Solapur Division, Solapur and the matters were remanded back to the Additional Talsildar with a direction to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law. The Tahsildar after hearing both the parties passed the orders in favour of respondent No.1. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer who also dismissed the appeals, filed by the petitioner and confirmed the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Against this order, again petitioner preferred revision applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The said revision applications were dismissed and the learned Tribunal confirmed the order passed by both the Courts below. Being aggrieved by the said orders, petitioner has filed the present writ petitions. The writ petition were admitted on 22-7-1992 and rule was granted. No interim order relief was, however, granted in favour of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that all the Courts below have committed an error of law, apparent on the face of record in misinterpreting the agreement dated 14-1-1980. She further submitted that Clause (2) and (3) of the agreements stipulate that the said agreement were for a period of five years and on completion of five years, the lands were to be given back to the petitioner. She submitted that the Courts below has misconstrued and misinterpreted the said agreements and had declared respondent No.1 as a tenant on the basis of the said agreements. It was submitted, therefore, that the said orders were liable to be set aside and quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1(a) to (d) submitted that respondent No.1 had filed an application before the Tahsildar claiming that he is a tenant of the said lands and the Tahsildar had visited the lands in dispute and had made an inquiry and had recorded the finding that respondent No.1 was actually cultivating the lands and was paying the rent in cash as well as in kind to the landlord. He submitted that though notice was served on the landlord, he remained absent. It is submitted that the orders were declaring respondent No.1 as a tenant as on 4-3-1983 and his name also came to be entered as a t