-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9394 OF 2010 Atmaram R. Mitkar & anr. ..Petitioners. Versus R. K. Kambli [Since deceased through L.Rs.] A]Vithal R. Kambli and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar for the petitioners. Mr. A. H. Palekar for R-1A to 1C. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 30, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Palekar learned counsel for respondent nos. 1A to 1C. 2. The petition arises out from the proceeding under section 70(b) of the BT&AL Act. The petitioner’s application under that section was allowed by the Tehsildar. However, this order was reversed by SDO in an appeal. In the revision before MRT, the order passed by SDO is confirmed. 3. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the suit land since prior to the tiller’s date. He claimed that he has rent receipts. However, the petitioner could not produce rent receipts before the authorities below. So far as petitioner’s srp -: 2 :- claim for possession is concerned, the petitioner has filed suit simplicitor for injunction in the civil Court. In the said suit, application for temporary injunction was taken out. The said application is, however, dismissed on 28/4/2002 and this order is confirmed by the District Court in an appeal on 28/8/2002. Thus, the petitioner seems to be not in possession of the land in question and therefore he cannot claim tenancy. The SDO and MRT have arrived at correct finding of fact, which do not call for any intervention at the hands of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)