1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2185 OF 2010 Dinkar Ramrao Deshmukh and another. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Anant Bhimrao Patil and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.G.V. Wani, advocate for petitioners. Mr.R.D. Biradar, advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 4 th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioners are the original defendants. 2. In two suits bearing R.C.S. No.488/1994 and R.C.S. No.492/1994, the main issue was raised as to whether the respondents(plaintiffs) are agriculturists or not. The issue was referred to Tenancy Tribunal for determination. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are real brother interse and the respondent no.3 is the wife of the respondent no.1. The contention of the petitioners was that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are traders and manufacturers of pipes. The petitioners alleged that the respondents can not be termed as agriculturists in as much as their main source of income is dependent on business of pipes. The Tahsildar, Chalisgaon 2 answered the issue in favour of respondents on the finding of fact that the land survey number 207/B1B stands in the name of respondent no.3-Shila and that the respondents being the members of joint family, the cultivation of the land by respondent nos.2 and 3, together, would suffice the purpose. It has been held that the respondents are the agriculturists. This finding was challenged by way of appeal. The Deputy Collector, Pachora dismissed the appeal bearing Tenancy Appeal No.7/2001. The appellate judgment is confirmed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and hence the Petition is filed by the unsuccessful defendants. 3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the observations made in judgment, it is amply clear that there are concurrent findings of facts as regards the status of the respondents as agriculturists. Mr.Wani would submit that the findings are improper and that certificate dated 29th August, 1998 issued by the Tahsildar was improperly relied upon though such certificate was issued on basis of the directions of the Court. He pointed out that the respondent nos.1 and 2 indicated their occupation as `business' in the plaint and copies of the summons etc. He argued that unless the respondents are found to be cultivators of the lands and are earning some agricultural income, they can not be regarded as agriculturists and hence, the findings 3 rendered by the Tenancy Tribunal is perverse. 4. Another contention of learned counsel Mr.Wani is that the revisional jurisdiction is not appropriately exercised by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In "Ramesh Ramnarayan Dangare V/s Vithabai Bhausaheb Wakchaure & another" {2005(2)Bom.C.R.794(SC)}, the Apex Court held that the M.R.T. could not have reversed the concurrent findings of the Tenancy Tribunal without disclosing as to how the reasons rendered by the said Court are perverse. It is well settled that ordinarily the concurrent findings of facts can not be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is pertinent to note that though the respondent nos.1 and 2 stated their occupation as traders/business yet it was not so stated by respondent no.3 and her name appears in the cultivation column of the 7/12 record for survey no.207/1B. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondents are the members of joint family and as such the findings recorded by the Tenancy Tribunal can not be stamped as totally arbitrary or without any material. Needless to say the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is uncalled for. The Petition is disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp2185.10