1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2309 OF 2009 Mingel Sirejo and Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. Dumubai Simon Martin & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.G.R.Rege i/b Mrs.Leena S.Sawant for the petitioners. Mr.R.P.Joshi for respondent nos.2 to 4. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 1ST OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by tenancy authorities in the proceedings arising from section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1947, filed by the respondent-tenants. Mr.Rege, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities below have committed grave error of law in relying upon mutation No.682 (for short “the ME”) to hold that the petitioners were in possession of the land as tenants on 1.4.1957. This M.E. does not prove possession of the petitioners as tenants as on 1.4.1957. Then he invited my attention to the judgment of the tribunal to contend that merely because the petitioners had filed an application for possession against the respondent- 2 tenants on the ground of default in payment of rent for the years 1956-57 and 1960-61, that cannot be a ground to hold that the respondents were lawful tenants in the suit land on 1.4.1957. Mr.Rege did not raised any other contention. I have perused the judgments of the authorities below and more particularly paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 14.11.2008. There is no dispute that the respondents are the tenants in the suit property. The question raised is only whether they were in possession as tenants on 1.4.1957 or they were inducted as tenants after 1.4.1957. The M.E. was certified on 6.5.1957. The certification of the M.E. is not in dispute. In view thereof the judgment relied upon by Mr.Rege in Hanmanta Daulappa Nimbal Vs. Babasaheb Dajisaheb Londhe (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 58 is of no avail to the petitioners. The M.E. undoubtedly shows that atleast on 6.5.1957 the respondents were in possession as the tenants. What is more important is the application filed by the petitioners against the tenants seeking possession of the suit property on the ground of default. In that application the petitioners alleged that the tenants were in default of arrears of rent for the year 1956-57 to 1960-61. This itself clearly indicates that the respondent- tenants were in possession on 1.4.1957. Even the other material on record shows that the respondents were in possession as the tenants on 1.4.1957. Considering that there 3 are concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below and considering that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of this court to disturb the findings of fact, in my opinion, this petition deserves no interference and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)