The court emphasized that voluntary statements regarding tenancy status, recorded under statutory authority, stand upheld in the absence of substantial evidence against them.

JUDGMENT:

1.Heard.

2 Respondent-landlord initiated proceedings under Section 70 (b) of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short) before Tahsildar, Khalapur through Tenancy Case No. 6 of 1988. The said proceedings were answered in favour of respondent- landlord thereby declaring that the petitioner is not a tenant. The said declaration is based on the statement given by the petitioner- tenant before the Tahsildar that the respondent-landlord is in possession of the land in question and the petitioner has no concern with the land in question. Accordingly vide order dated 31/08/1988, Tahsildar directed removal of name of the petitioner from 7/12 extract.

3 Petitioner feeling aggrieved, preferred an Appeal under Section 74 of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer ('SDO' for short), Panvel who by order dated 30/03/1992 confirmed the findings recorded by the Tahsildar and dismissed the Appeal.

4 Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred Revision before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ('MRT' for short) vide Revision No. 179 of 1992 which also came to be dismissed on 22/06/1995. As such, this petition.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tahsildar declaring the petitioner not to be a tenant was passed on 31/08/1988 whereas respondent created third party interest I n the property in question on 27/04/1989. In that view, the fact remains that order impugned passed by the authorities are not sustainable particularly when the proceedings under the Tenancy Act were pending before this Court. The next limb of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, subsequent purchaser namely Mr. Deshpande though has moved an application for intervener as party respondent before Authorities below, same was not pressed. That being so, in view of principle of acquiescence, as the claim of tenancy was not contested against the petitioner by new landlord, the prayer of petitioner for status of tenancy is liable to be allowed.

6 Third point which is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, pursuant to Section 15 of the Act, duty is cast upon the Tahsildar to conduct a thorough enquiry in the matter and make aware about consequences of the surrender of the tenancy to the petitioner-tenant. According to him, procedure contemplated under Section 15 of the Act is not followed and that being so, order impugned is not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of this Court in the matter of Dattu Gundu Parit Vs. Javahar Nanchand Shah [2006 (1) ALLMR 106] particularly paragraph 8.

7 The learned counsel for the petitioner then would invite attention of this Court to the finding recorded by MRT on the issue of non availability of the record and proceedings from the file of Tahsildar and the SDO. According to him, since the record was not traceable, findings recorded are pervert as same are contrary to requirement under Section 15 of the Act.

8 As such, the submissions are, order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside.

9 The learned counsel for respondent supported the order impugned and submits that all the facets of the matter are considered by the Authorities and a concurrent finding is recorded.

As such, dismissal is sought.

10 No doubt, it is true that MRT has recorded a finding that the record and proceedings of the case in hand from the file of Tahsildar are not traceable.

11 In such an eventuality, the option left with the petitioner was to apply for reconstruction of record or to produce on his own such material before the Authorities so as to establish his case particularly when the burden is casted on the petitioner to that effect.

12 Instead of doing so, the petitioner has tried to take undue mileage out of observations recorded by the MRT as regards non availability of the record and proceedings from the file of Tahsildar.

13 Apart from above, in the backdrop of requirement under Section 15 , the case of the petitioner is appreciated, in the order of Mamlatdar