1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3981 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1013 OF 2009 Nana Dhakalya Gharat & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Rajeev Patil i/b S.P.Munghate for the petitioners. Mr.Yogesh Rawool with S.S.Redekar for respondent no.3. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 4 and 5. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 16TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below in the proceedings arising from an application filed by the petitioners-tenant under section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”). The application for restoration of possession of the land under section 37 was filed on the ground that the landlord failed to cultivate the land within one year from the date on which he took possession and/or ceased to use it within twelve years from the date of possession. The respondent- landlord, who is a certificated landlord, had obtained possession of the land in dispute under section 33-B in 1976. The exact date on which the possession was handed over to the landlord 2 has also come on record, which is 28.5.1976. Section 37 of the Act provides that if the landlord, after taking possession of the land, fails to cultivate the land within one year from the date on which he took possession or ceases to use it any time within 12 years from the date on which he took possession, the tenant is entitled to seek restoration of possession of the land. In the present case there is absolutely no material on record to show that the landlord either failed to cultivate the land within one year from 28.5.1976 or ceased to use it for cultivation any time within 12 years from the date of taking possession. Some entry in the 7/12 extract showing name of the petitioner for the year 1982, in my opinion, will not help the petitioner to prove that the landlord either did not cultivate the land within one year or ceased to use it for cultivation any time within 12 years from the date of taking possession. Considering the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below and considering that there is sufficient material on record to sustain the findings of fact and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the findings of fact, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. Consequently, the civil application is also disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)