JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent taken up for final hearing. For sake of convenience, the Tenant is referred to as Applicant and the landlord as Respondent.

THE CHALLENGE:

2. Both these Writ Petitions are directed against the order dated 2nd August, 2019 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, "MRT") in Tenancy Revision No 248 of 2017. Writ Petition No.135 of 2021 is filed by the Respondent-landlord being aggrieved by the impugned order granting tenancy status in respect of three suit properties. Writ Petition No.815 of 2020 is filed by the Applicant- Tenant, aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that it rejects the claim of tenancy in respect of the other seven properties. Common submissions were advanced in both the petitions as identical issues arise for consideration and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

3. The proceedings arose out of a Tenancy Application No.113 of 1981 filed by the Applicant's father under Section 70(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "Tenancy Act") claiming tenancy in respect of 10 properties i.e. the Survey Nos.8/13, 13/3, 13/34, 14/1/79, 22/40, 25/58/1, 25/58/3, 25/58/3, 25/58/4, 25/59 and 25/62+58/5. The Tahsildar and ALT allowed the application vide order dated 29 th March, 1990 against which appeal preferred by the Respondent before the SDO came to be dismissed vide order dated 15th April, 1994. The Respondent - Landlord filed Revision application before MRT which remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. After remand, the Tahsildar allowed the tenancy application by order dated 11th March, 2008 which was again challenged before SDO who allowed the Appeal by order dated 3 rd August, 2011. The Applicant Tenant preferred Revision before MRT which remanded the matter to SDO for fresh consideration vide order dated 19th June, 2014.

4. The impugned order of MRT arises out of the order of SDO dated 29th August, 2017 passed after remand. The SDO allowed the Tenancy Appeal in favour of Respondent-landlord against which the Applicant- Tenants preferred Revision before MRT and by the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2019, MRT allowed the tenancy claim as under:

"1. Revision No.TNC/REV/SND/248/2017 is partly allowed. The order of Ld.Tahsildar in Remand Case 10/2005 dt.11/3/2008 is modified confining tenancy status to the Applicant to the lands land S.No.25/62+58 (27 gunthas), land S.No.25/59 (5 gunthas) and land S.No.25/58/3 (20 gunthas) which consists of residential house, well and several trees. 2. The order of Ld. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kankavali in Ten. Appeal No.34/2009 dt.29/8/2017 is set aside."

SUBMISSIONS:

5. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Landlord would submit that the Applicant sought declaration under Section 4(1) of the Tenancy Act. He submits that there was no rent receipt produced by the Applicant nor any evidence showing the commencement date of tenancy. Drawing attention to the findings of MRT, he would submit that only on the basis of the possession of the Applicant of the house property and cattle shed, MRT has granted tenancy status in respect of three properties. He would take this Court in detail through the evidence recorded by the Tahsildar in Remand Case No.19 of 2005 and the admissions of the Applicant that the house property belongs to the Respondent, that there is no documentary evidence as regards construction of house No.91, that there is no kabulayat, lawanchiti, etc. in respect of the lands, that land admeasuring 18 R out of Survey No.25/4, land bearing 4 R out of Survey No.25/58/1 are not agricultural lands, that he does not have the 7/12 extracts and that the land revenue was handed over to his father by the Respondent-landlord. He submits that it is clear from the admission given in the cross-examination that the land revenue was being paid by the Respondent-landlord through the original Applicant-ten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document