:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4437 OF 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2189 OF 2002 Shantaram N. Mungekar since deceased by S.S. Mungekar ..Petitioner Vs. Kashinath V. Dhule and ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.L. Naik for petitioner. Ms. Gauri Godse for respondent no.6. Mr. S.M. Railkar for respondent no.7. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 04, 2008. Date : June 04, 2008. Date : June 04, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Naik the learned counsel for the petitioner, who had approached the Tahsildar and ALT, Malwan in Tenancy Case No. 17 of 1984 for declaration that he is the tenant on the suit lands as stated below:- :2: Survey No. Pot Hissa No. Area(Ha) Assessment --------- ------------- ---- ---------- 81 3 0.3.5 0.03 93A 29 0.14.0 0.11 130 21A 0.22.0 0.17 130 21B 0.01.0 0.02 2. After hearing all the concerned parties, the Tahsildar by his Judgment and Order dated 30/9/1985 was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner and on the other hand, the present respondent no.6 was declared as a tenant of the suit land at Sr.Nos.3 and 4 and respondent no.7 was declared as a tenant in respect of the land at Sr.No.2 as mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner, therefore, approached the SDO at Kankawali in Tenancy Appeal No. 31 of 1985, who was pleased to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar. Finally, the petitioner filed Tenancy Revision Application No. 191 of 1994 before the MRT, which came to be allowed partly by the impugned order dated 22/2/1995. The order passed by the authorities below came to be set aside and the application of the petitioner was remanded to the Tahsildar for making :3: further enquiry of the claim of the applicant for tenancy in respect of the land in Survey No.81/3 and 93A/29 and thereafter pass an appropriate order according to law, after hearing all the parties concerned. 3. The MRT noted that the Tahsildar did not give any reasons while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, despite the fact that the landlord had admitted his tenancy. Not only this, but when the respondent nos.6 and 7 had not claimed tenancy in respect of any of the suit lands, the Tahsildar declared them tenants in respect of some of the lands, as noted hereinabove. It was under these circumstances that the MRT remanded the case for fresh enquiry and decision by the Tahsildar. Even though the landlord had admitted the tenancy of the petitioner, the Tahsildar had declared respondent nos.6 and 7 as the tenants and, therefore, it was rightly directed by the MRT that the application of the petitioner was required to be considered de novo. The reasoning set out by the MRT while allowing the petitioner’s revision application partly does not :4: suffer from any errors apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, there is no case made out to cause interference in the impugned order while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. Ad-interim order stands vacated. The enquiry, on remand, as per the impugned order shall be completed by the Tahsildar as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31st October, 2008, after hearing all the parties concerned. 5. Writ to go to the Tahsildar forthwith. R & P be returned forthwith. 6. Civil Application No. 2189 of 2002 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)