FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders WRIT PETITION NO. 7948 OF 2010 KISHAN RAJARAM KADAM LRS DAGADABAI KISAN KADAM AND ORS VERSUS RANJANABAI SURYABHAN MAHADIK AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar Mr. Dhengle S.A.Advocate for Rno. 3 To 9 1 And 2 Served ... CORAM : S V GANGAPURWALA, J. Dated: November 21, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. The present respondent No.1 has filed suit bearing RCS No.12/1989 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom. In the said suit, the issue “Whether the present petitioner is tenant or not ?” was referred to the Tenancy Court. The Additional Tahsildar, Osmanabad after hearing the parties decided that Kisan Rajaram was not tenant of the suit land. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Collector, Osmanabad. The Deputy Collector, Osmanabad dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the Tahsildar. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Revision before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also dismissed the revision. Aggrieved thereby, present petition is filed. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders 2. Shri Katneshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that ground on which the right of the petitioner to claim tenancy has been rejected is erroneous only on the ground that the petitioner is nephew of the original land lord. The right of the petitioner as a tenant has been negatived. Learned counsel contends that there is no bar for nephew tobe a tenant of land lord. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gyandeo Duraji Pirange Vs. Pandurang Jyoti Pirange reported in [1994 (2) Mh.L.J. 1174]. The learned counsel further contended that, even otherwise, the petitioner has proved that land was given on batai basis to the petitioner and his predecessor. Learned counsel submits that even present respondent No.2 has admitted this fact in the earlier suit bearing RCS No.135/1976. The present respondent No.2 had entered into the compromise accepting the factum of tenancy of the petitioner. This aspect has not been considered by the Court. According to the learned counsel, there is a perverse appreciation of the evidence on the part of the authorities. 3. Mr. Dhengale learned counsel for the respondents submit that there was no admission on the part of the respondents. Even compromise which was entered into was not verified. On the contrary, the respondent No.2, denied the terms of the compromise. In view of that, it cannot be said FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders that, there was admission. There cannot be a tenancy between a land lord and his nephew. Same is barred by Section 5 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the Case of Syed Ibrahim Syed Ashraf and another Vs. Zamarrudbi Nizamuddin and others reported in 1990 Mh.L.J. 631. Learned counsel further contends that all courts have concurrently held that the petitioner has failed to prove his alleged tenancy and as such concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned judgment. All the authorities have concurrently held that petitioner has not proved that land was given to him on batai basis. Said finding is a finding of fact arrived at concurrently by all the three courts. This court would not re-appreciate the whole evidence in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, unless it is shown that the evidence appreciated is perverse. There is no document on record showing that said land was given to the petitioner or his predecessor on batai basis. Terms and conditions of batai are also not coming forth. Moreover, even on appreciation of the evidence, all the three authorities have come to the conclusion that petitioner has failed to prove that FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders land was given to him on batai basis. Alleged compromise in RCS No.135/1976 relied by the petitioner also would not be of any aid to the petitioner in view of the fact that though said compromise was entered into, the present respondent No.2 had immediately resiled from the said compromise and refused to verify it. 5. In view of fact that petitioner has failed to prove that land was given to him on batai basis, no question arises of deciding other issues as to Whether nephew could have been a tenant of the land lord or not. The petitioner having not proved the basic fact that land was given to him on batai basis, petition cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. ( S V GANGAPURWALA, J. ) aaa/- ***