The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the conditions for a person to be deemed a tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the clarification of the time limit for exercising the right to purchase land under Section 32O.

1. The petition challenges the order passed by learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT” for short) dated 10th October 2001 allowing revision application filed by respondent No.2 and thereby setting aside the concurrent orders i.e. order dated 31st March 1993 passed by learned SubDivisionsal Officer, Karad (“SDO” for short) confirming the order dated 12th August 1991 passed by Tenancy Awal Karkun thereby holding the predecessor of the present petitioners to be a tenant of the suit land.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under:

That respondent No.2 filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad claiming therein that he was the owner of suit land. It was contended that the predecessor in title of the petitioners namely Vithu Sakharam Jadhav was an intelligent person and that in connivance with the revenue authorities he had made certain entries in the 7/12 extract and shown himself to be a tenant of the suit land. It was further contended that the said Vithu taking undue advantage of revenue entries was trying to obstruct possession of the respondent No.2 herein though he had no right to do so.

3. It was, therefore, prayed for declaration that said Vithu was not a tenant of the suit land and for order of injunction restraining the said Vithu from obstructing the possession of the plaintiff/ respondent No.2 in suit land.

4. The suit was resisted by said Vithu, the predecessor of the present petitioners. It was contended by the said defendant that he and his predecessor were cultivating the suit land since long and had become deemed purchaser on 1st April 1957 i.e. tillers' day. It was specifically contended that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor had cultivated the land any time but it was cultivated by the predecessor of the defendant. In view of the rival pleadings, the leaned Civil Judge found that issue of tenancy was raised in the proceedings and, as such, referred the said issue to the competent authority i.e. tenancy court. The tenancy court, vide order dated 12th August 1991, on the basis of evidence placed on record held that said Vithu Sakharam Jadhav was cultivating the suit land from 195960. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.2 before learned SDO. The learned SDO vide order dated 31st March 1993 dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved thereby a revision was preferred by respondent No.2. The said revision is allowed and, hence, the present petition.

5. Shri Chamboowala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that learned MRT has grossly erred in allowing the revision. He, firstly, contended that in view of concurrent findings of fact it was not permissible for the revisional court to enter into concurrent findings and reappreciate the evidence once again and come to a different finding. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that learned MRT has travelled beyond the scope of revision and, as such, on this ground alone petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Shri Chamboowala further submits that the finding recorded by MRT that in absence of leasedeed or rent receipts the tenancy cannot be established is totally perverse. Learned counsel further submits that for establishing that a person is a tenant it is sufficient if the person comes within the scope of “deemed tenant” as defined in section

4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“said Act” for short) . Learned counsel submits that by a judicial pronouncement it has been held that except three categories, which are carved out under section 4, all other other persons who are in lawful cultivation of land are entitled to be “deemed tenant” and, as such, tenant within the scope of said Act. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the evidence placed on record, the finding that the petitioner was a tenant of the suit land from 195960 could not have been interfered by learned MRT. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the ord