1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4550 OF 2009 Budhaji Krishna Kundye & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Smt. Gita Govind Natu & Ors. .. Respondents Mrs. Anjali N. Helekar for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b Mr. A.L Desai for respondent no.1. Mr. G.J. Sabnis for respondent no.4. Mr. A.H. Palekar for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 12TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. 2. The petitioner nos.2, 4 and 5 are the brothers of petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.3 is his sister. The petitioner no.1 is the eldest of the siblings. The petitioner no. 1 made an application to the Tahsildar for declaring that he was a tenant of the respondent no.1-landlord. The Tahsildar granted the application. However, on appeal the Sub- Divisional Officer reversed the decision and dismissed the application of the petitioner no.1. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) has affirmed the decision 2 of the appellate authority. That decision is impugned in this petition. 3. The view taken by the appellate authority and the Tribunal that the petitioner no.1 is not a tenant is a finding of fact and in the absence of any perversity cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. In my view, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioners’ claim. The petitioners claim that the petitioners and their family were tenants prior to 1957. The petitioner no.1 was born in the year 1962. This fact is confirmed by the petitioners’ advocate by taking instructions from petitioner no.5 who is personally present in the Court. Thus, he could not be tenant in the year 1957. 5. The petitioners sought to rely upon two rent receipts. The rent receipts were not admitted by the respondent no.1 and the were not proved. The Tribunal has therefore rightly discarded the said rent receipts. The case of payment of rent is contrary to the pleadings in the application. In the application, the petitioner no.1 has pleaded that he was 3 giving to the respondent 11 “kudav” of rice. (I am informed that “kudav” is a measurement representing about 8 kgs.). The alleged rent receipts were regarding payment of money and there was thus a variance between the pleadings and the rent receipts. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the evidence of alleged rent receipts. 6. The petitioner no.1 also could not describe correctly the alleged crops grown by him in the land. There was a variance between the government records and the crop alleged to be grown by the petitioners’ family. 7. The lower appellate court has held that the petitioners have failed to prove the tenancy. This is not only a possible but imminently probable finding of fact. The Tribunal has also reached the same finding of fact. No interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)