The court affirmed that establishing mental unsoundness requires substantial evidence; previously accepted evidence does not diminish the landlord's burden of proof.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Advocate Palekar for petitioner, Advocate Khairdi for respondents.

2. Challenge in this petition is to judgment and order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 29th September, 2000 in Tenancy Revision TR/59/B/99 thereby accepting the contention of respondent-landlord that pre-decessor in title Shankar Daulat was mentally unsound on Tillers' day and hence it got postponed till after his death. The present petitioner-tenant in possession on Tiller's day did not exercise his right to purchase within one year of said death and hence the purchase in his favour became ineffective. The adjudication under Section 32P to that effect in favour of respondents and against petitioner has thus been maintained.

3. Shri Palekar has contended that finding of mental unsoundness has been recorded without there being any convincing and medical evidence on record. Submission is only on the strength of oral evidence, such a finding could not have been reached. Learned Counsel states that this oral evidence was earlier before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 12th August, 1992 and after its proper appreciation, as MRT then found it insufficient, it remanded matter back for giving parties fresh opportunity. Though, thereafter, opportunity was offered, the landlord did not adduce any evidence again and faced the trial on the basis of very same evidence. Thus, in the light of this judgment dated 12th August, 1992 it was not open to Tehsildar or other authorities to reach a finding to the contrary.

4. In alternative and without prejudice, his other contention is the SDO who decided appeal of present petitioner on 15th February, 1999 has not discharged his obligations as an Appellate Authority. Though he has recorded a judgment of concurrence, he has not appreciated the evidence and mechanically order of Tehsildar has been maintained. Thus there is failure to exercise the appellate jurisdiction thereby denying to petitioner effectively the remedy under Section 74 of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 . He contends that thus when matter was argued before MRT in revision there were no findings on facts as settled by law and hence the order in revision is also to be quashed and set aside.

5. He explains that in order to defeat statutory vesting of tenanted property in present petitioner on 1st April, 1957 and the proceedings under Section 32G for determination of purchase price, the landlord devised a novel move and they came up with defence that Shankar Daulat was insane. As they came up with this case, burden was upon them to establish that insanity and evidence on record clearly shows that they have not succeeded in it. He is relying upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Annaji Balwant Bokil vs. Bhau Gopala Gaikwad {1974 TLR page 49} particularly paras appearing at page 48 and 49 of the report.

6. Learned Counsel for respondents has invited attention to previous history to show that at one point of time Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal itself has recorded that insanity of Shankar Daulat was accepted by petitioner-tenant himself. He contends that in this situation when again matter came before MRT, MRT has found that there was no scope for getting medical certificate or similar document on record to corroborate insanity of Shankar Daulat due to passage of time. The learned Counsel submits that oral evidence is available on record and its appreciation and finding returned thereafter cannot be labelled either as erroneous or perverse. He, therefore, prays for