Mr. Balaram G. Gaikwad v. Mr. Dattatraya R. Devlekar

2 Respondents thereafter preferred revision under the Revision of the said Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which revision is allowed by the order impugned in the present Petition. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the member of the Revenue Tribunal could not have interfered in concurrent finding of the facts recorded by the Tahsildar and S.D.O. in a revisional jurisdiction. 3 The learned counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned order. He submitted that the Petitioner never claimed tenancy in respect of the suit property. The Petitioner only claimed possession. Simplicitor possession is not sufficient to allow Petitioner’s claim under section70(b). In the circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the Petition. 3 24-wp-7725-10.sxw 4 I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the impugned order along with other annexures of the Petition, I find no merits in the Writ Petition.

It is the case of the Petitioner that the suit property originally belongs to his uncle and his uncle has sold the same to the father of the Respondent. However, Petitioner's father remains in possession. Further contention of the Petitioner is that he has house in 4 guntha of the said land. The Petitioner has also not claimed tenancy from the father of the Respondent. In these circumstances, it is clear that Petitioner only claim to be in possession of 10 R of the suit property. The possession will not prove Petitioner's tenancy. In order to prove the same, Petitioner must show something more than possession. The Petitioner, in fact, before Tahsildar has never contended that he is in possession of the suit property in his capacity as a tenant. He has not produced any agreement, rent receipt etc. In spite of this position, the Tahsildar and S.D.O. passed order under section 70(b) of the said Act, in respect of 10 R. This order has been rightly set aside by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal inasmuch as the finding recorded by the lower authority are perverse in nature. 4 24-wp-7725-10.sxw 5 In the above circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

(RANJIT MORE, J.)