RP 179.10 1 SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.179 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 145 OF 2010 Kabir Parshuram Patil ....Petitioner Versus Sub-Divisional Officer & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Rajesh Datar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. Suhas Patil i/b. M/s. Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr.Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patel, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2. . 2. The review petition is filed for review of order dated 28th July, 2010 passed in the above writ petition. The respondent no.2.s application for fixation of purchase price was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred revision. The petitioner could not RP 179.10 2 SSK succeed in the revision, and therefore, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition which was dismissed by the order dated 28th July, 2010. It was the contention of the petitioner that Mahadu- father of Budhya was a tenant in the suit property, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed under Section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The respondent no.2's contention is that Budhya, his father was a tenant and therefore, the petitioner has no concern in the tenancy of the suit property. Concurrent findings of fact was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that Budhya, father of respondent no.2 was a tenant in the property in dispute. The petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no error in findings of the fact so as enable the Court to interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner, now submitted that the documents on record does not support respondent no.2's contention that his father was tenant in the suit property and requested that the order dated 28th July, 2010 passed in the aforesaid writ petition be reviewed. In my view, this cannot be the ground to review the order dated 28th July, 2010. No case is made out for review, and therefore, the review petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)