Tenancy claims must be substantiated with documentary evidence; eviction upheld where no proof of tenancy exists.

2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging judgment and order passed by learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “MRT”) in Tenancy Revision No.REV/TNC/AMR-81/2018, dated 04.03.2020, whereby learned Member, MRT dismissed the tenancy revision filed on behalf of the petitioners, upholding the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bhatkuli dated 30.07.2018 in Tenancy Case No.59/(13)/Hartala/06/2014-2015.

3. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 120 (3) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 for eviction of the petitioners. He submits that said application was erroneously allowed by Sub Divisional Officer and it was affirmed erroneously by learned Member of the MRT. He submits that the petitioners, being tenant of respondent no.1-trust, they cannot be evicted by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 120 (3) of the Act. He, therefore, prays that the petition be allowed.

4. Per contra, Mr. Babrekar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that petitioners are not tenants of respondent no.1-Trust and they are in occupation of the trust’s agricultural property unauthorisedly and therefore the authorities below have rightly exercised powers vested in them under Section 120 (3) of the Act.

5. There is no dispute that respondent no.1 is a trust and is armed with the exemption certificate. The said trust is having agricultural land bearing survey No. 31-G, Gat No.59, area 2.26 HR of village Hartala. Originally, Raghuji Nimbalkar was tenant of the respondent no.1 trust. After his death, in favour of his son Waman, tenancy was created by the trust. Waman died in the year 1988. The present petitioners are legal representatives of Waman. According to the respondent-trust, no fresh tenancy was created in favour of the petitioners. It was the case of the trust that petitioners are in unauthorized occupation, therefore, they filed application before the Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioners, on being noticed, appeared and filed their written statement. It was their case before the authorities that after death of Waman fresh tenancy was created in their favour. Thus, this specific plea was taken by them that tenancy is created in their favour.

However, the petitioners could not file anything on record to show that the tenancy was created in their favour. No documents, in the nature of ‘bataipatra’ was placed on record by them though it was claimed by petitioners that the said document was executed in their favour by the trust. Similarly, the petitioners could not point out that they have paid any rent to the trust. In the proceedings before the authority, trust examined one Devidas Chidhe, who was also cross-examined. Similarly, Ramdas, petitioner no.2 entered into witness box for and on behalf of the petitioners. Even, during the course of their evidence, no documentary evidence was placed on record. The learned Member of the MRT found that though it was the claim of Ramdas in the affidavit that fresh tenancy agreement was executed apart from fact that no such agreement was placed on record even Ramdas could not disclose what were terms and conditions of agreement.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that one Annapurna Shewale one of the legal representatives of Waman is not brought on record. Therefore, the matter could not have proceed further. In my view, this submission cannot be considered for the reason that the trust filed an application for evicting the persons who are in unauthorised occupation of the trust property. Since, Annapurna was not in occupation or in possession of the trust property,