: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1661 OF 2009 Suresh Kamalaji Thakur ... Petitioner V/s. Vijaykumar Tukaram Mhatre ... Respondent Mr.M.B. Kale for Petitioner Mr.S.V. Gavand AGP, for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 25th JUNE, 2009 P. C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by three orders passed against him declaring that he is not a tenant of the respondent. According to the petitioner, his father was cultivating the land which is owned by the respondent. After the death of hs father he continued to cultivate the same. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's father's name was shown in the revenue extract as a tenant and, therefore, the petitioner had adequately proved before the Tenancy Court that he was entitled to be declared a tenant. 2. The tenancy Court has dismissed the case by the petitioner for a declaration that he was a tenant u/s 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the SDO : 2 : which met with the same fate. Subsequently, the revenue tribunal has also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 3. Significantly, mutation entry No.849 which was made on 8.11.1955 indicates that the petitioner's father's name was deleted as a tenant. This entry has not been challenged by the petitioner at all although he claims that he is the tenat only because his father was recognised as a tenant by the respondent. 4. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below which need not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Petition rejected.