WP 11443/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11443 OF 2010 ( Shivaji Gopalrao Lomate Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. J.S. Gavane, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, AGP for R. 1, 3 & 4. Mr. P.G. Deshmukh, Advocate for R. 2(a) & 2 (b). CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 1st March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. J. S. Gavane for petitioner, Advocate Shri. Deshmukh for respondent Nos. 2 (a) and 2 (b) and learned A.G.P. Smt. V. A. Shinde for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 25.11.2010 in revision Nos. 51-B-2001-O and 52-B-2001-O. 3. According to Advocate Shri. Gavane, MRT has dwelt under mistaken impression that there cannot be oral lease. He has relied upon judgment of Single Judge of this Court reported in 2009 (4) ALL MR 6 in the case of Ramji s/o. Dhondji Dhumal & Ors. Vs. Mahadu Jalbaji Dhumal & Ors. to show that creation of oral lease accompanied by delivery of possession is well accepted judicially. Without prejudice, he points out that appreciation of revenue records in paragraph WP 11443/10 2 No. 10 of the judgment of MRT is again unsustainable. When petitioner has shown as person in cultivation and in possession, the inference of tenancy ought to have been drawn. He is also inviting attention to oral evidence to show that how those witnesses have supported the case of present petitioner. 4. Shri. Deshmukh, on the other hand, points out that MRT has considered entire material and found that case of tenancy was not made out. The appreciation of evidence by lower authority was found to be improper. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused papers. It is settled that lease can be created orally by delivery of possession. Hence, it is not necessary to refer precedent cited by Advocate Gavane. 6. MRT has considered 7/12 extract as filed on record from the year 1976/1977 onwards to note that there the status of petitioner was never disclosed and his name appear as person in cultivation alongwith name of present respondent Nos. 2(a) and 2(b). It further found that this entry of name of petitioner was questioned by respondent before revenue authorities and they were successful in their challenge. 7. It is then noticed that lower authorities have ignored the fact of filing of suit in the year 1981 and considered revenue receipts for the year 1983-1984 onwards. In other words, MRT found documentary evidence prior to institution of suit was WP 11443/10 3 more relevant. It has then made reference to section 8 of Hydrabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and found proceedings under section 8 of the Act were filed in 1985 i.e. after 15 years of alleged creation of lease. The oral agreement of Batai is also rejected by it holding that evidence in relation thereof was not cogent. The discussion undertaken by MRT in para 11, 12 and 13 shows valid reasons recorded by it for discarding the oral evidence and for relying upon the documentary evidence. 8. As I do not notice any jurisdictional error or perversity, writ petition is rejected. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] ssc/wp11443.10