( 1 ) IN this petition under the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed in Revision Application No. TEN. B. S. 105/92 dated 20. 2. 99 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By virtue of the said order, the tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No. 10372/82 dated 3. 5. 91 and order dated 17. 5. 92 passed by the Deputy Collector, Navsari in Tenancy Appeal No. 28/91.

( 2 ) THE facts pertaining to the case are as under. The petitioner was claiming to be a tenant in respect of lands bearing Blocks Nos. 147, 247, 146 and 148 situated at Village: Munsad and had therefore submitted an application under the provisions of sec. 70 (b) and sec. 70 (nb) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said application was rejected by the Mamlatdar and ALT by his order dated 3. 5. 91 on the ground that the petitioner was having family relation with the respondents and therefore he could not have been declared a tenant in respect of the land in question. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 28/91 before the Deputy Collector, Navsari. The Deputy Collector, Navsari, by his order dated 17. 5. 92, rejected the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the order passed in appeal by the Deputy Collector, Navsari, the petitioner had approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing a revision application and as the said revision application has been also rejected by an order dated 20. 2. 99, the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer that the orders referred to hereinabove be quashed and the petitioner be declared a tenant in respect of the land in question.

( 3 ) UPON perusal of the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities below, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is closely related to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 is the sister of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the mother-in-law of the petitioners sister and respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are children of respondent No. 2, who are also nephews of the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was cultivating the land in question on the tillers day and therefore he had claimed tenancy right in respect of the land in question. His application under sec. 70 (b) of the Act was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was brother of respondent No. 2. It is pertinent to note that respondent No. 2 is a widow and at the time when the tenancy right was claimed, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5, i. e. , the children of respondent No. 2, were minors. It appears that the land in question originally belonged to late Shri Saiyad Jiavuddin, the husband of respondent No. 2 and brother-in-law of the petitioner and some land was purchased by respondent No. 1, who is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 1. Upon death of Shri Saiyad Jaivuddin, the land was inherited by respondent No. 2 and then it was given to the petitioner for its cultivation. Though the respondents had disputed the fact that the petitioner was cultivating the land in question, assuming without admitting, that the petitioner had cultivated the land in question for some time, in my opinion, the authorities below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot become a tenant in respect of the land in question as he was cultivating the land of his sister.

( 5 ) THE concurrent finding arrived at by the authorities below is to the effect that the petitioner was having family relations with the respondents and therefore, as per the provisions of sec. 4 of the Act, the petitioner could not have become a tenant in respect of the land in question. Relevant portion of sec. 4 of the act reads as under:-4. Persons to be deemed tenants.- A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if s