1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No.26 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.2054 of 1997 (Smt. Godabai wd/o Nathuji Shirbhate and others v. Ramdas s/o Bhagwant Bijwey) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.S. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 26th February, 2010 The applicants, who are respondents in Writ Petition No.2054 of 1997, seek a review of the judgment delivered on 2-5-2009 on the following grounds : (A) That this Hon'ble Court ought to have held that since the non-applicant Ramdas Bijwe has taken a contradictory stand in the evidence before the Tahsildar, i.e. authority under the Tenancy Act, is not proved. (B) That this Hon'ble Court ought to have held that since the non-applicant Ramdas denied the relationship with plaintiff's mother Renukabai, the stay of tenancy should have been disbelieved, and ought to have held that Ramdas is not a tenant. (C) That this Hon'ble Court ought to have held that in view of the decision of this Hon'ble Court, reported in 1973 Mh.L.J., Note 5, 2 the entry in the revenue record does not prove that he is a tenant or not, and if the deemed tenancy is pleaded, then the relief of contractual tenancy cannot be granted. (D) That this Hon'ble Court put a wrong construction on 2003(G) Mh.L.J. 956 and 1989 Mh.L.J. 689 (E). That this Hon'ble Court erred in allowing the said petition. (E) That the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court is illegal, contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. The contradictory stand taken by the respondents has been noted in the judgment and has been dealt with. Whether it was dealt with rightly or wrongly, cannot be gone into in a review petition. That fact that Ramdas had denied relationship with Renukabai has also been discussed. The implications thereof have also been discussed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is something, which was before the Court and has not been noticed. There can be no doubt that the revenue record of possession does not prove whether a person is tenant or not, but if a person is found to be in possession and if he is not a member of the owner's family, a servant on wages or a mortgagee in possession in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, he becomes a deemed tenant and. therefore, there is no question of grant of contractual tenancy. The judgment in Dwarkanath v. Narayan, reported at 1989 Mh.L.J. 689, has also been discussed and it has been held in the peculiar facts of that 3 case that upon failure to prove contractual tenancy, there cannot be deemed tenancy. The question as to putting a wrong construction on the judgment of this Court in Anusayabai v. Baba Tatya, reported at 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 956, cannot also be a ground for review, since that is the view taken and in any case it has been observed that the petitioner was not shown to be a member of family of Tulsabai, the owner of the field in question. Tulsabai was the wife of Ganpat. The petitioner is descendant of Ganpat's brother Lungarsa. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the petition was one under Article 227 of the Constitution and not under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, there could be no re-appreciation of evidence. There has in fact been no re-appreciation of evidence. On the evidence, as unfolded, it has only been found out which implication of law would follow and, therefore, there is no question of any re-appreciation of evidence having been done. If there are any grievances of the applicant, he could definitely raise them before the appropriate forum and not by an application for review. The learned counsel for the applicant also sought to rely on Note (38) in 1966 Mh.L.J. It was a case of co-owners, one of whom was found cultivating the land, which was held by them as Inam, for rendering service in a mosque. In the present case, since the petitioner was not shown to be a member of family of Tulsabai, to whom the land belonged, there is no question of joint ownership. 4 In view of this, the review application is rejected. Judge. pdl