(1) WP. 3189.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3189 OF 2010 Ganesh Lahanuji Sewalkar and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Tanhabai w/o Bapurao Mujmule and anr. .. Respondents Mr. L.B. Palod, Advocate for the Petitioners ... CORAM : VR. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard. The petitioner is original defendant no.2 in suit (RCS 351 of 2008). He alongwith other defendants 3 and 4 filed an application (Exh.36) praying that tenancy issue may be framed. It was contended that the suit land was given to the defendant no.1 Kashinath by the plaintiff Tanhabai on lease. The trial Court rejected the application and declined to frame issue of tenancy. The trial Court observed that considering the pleadings of parties framing of such issue is redundant and unnecessary. 2] After hearing learned counsel Mr. Palod for the petitioner, it is amply clear that the pleadings of the plaintiff indicated that she had given the (2) WP. 3189.2010 said land to the defendant no.1-son for cultivation thereof. She categorically alleged that the defendant no.1 is her son and having regard to good relations between them she asked him to look after the cultivation of the suit land. There is absolutely no material to show that there was any written agreement of lease nor it could be said that the son is the tenant of mother's land. The son being member of the family of the plaintiff, no lease as contemplated under the B.T. and A.L. Act could be created. The trial Court's view is therefore not perverse or arbitrary. No substance. Petition dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp