V Ii £tii2 iiizn cdUfli til? J J1.LJ sin £n 3flKrl 4 inl CFM: 19 ffiuA f 04 i,JU5iAJii riniLiu)LrIn1n it 5,9 cr Ti 8 zUkL ier,araiah /o Kencnaian, 55 yrs, d/o L.horanahal I Varuna ol k4ysore Tq, & Jist, ,,, Pet±ticer city 2,1’, Grands b’ aX, Actv, nh4 1. Sr Lan yapoa Kemparra major 4 R/ 0 Choranahaili drama cdhoranabalierama) I4ysore Tq, a dist, , Ije iand £r.bunai Mysora Tq, aria i)ist, 3, Lie Stat o Kin oj its oecretary, he enue LJCpt, ilinana Soudha sangaiore-i ztezpame ts (Lv arT b,i, Parthesarathy, A, ihI £$Li2 is fiiea. under 0cc, I1A of the aarmtahe Land Steforms s&ct againat the order it Cu 0 yc a ti ii 0 t t an Re p i at a tr ‘1 y, M3 or , I r t e ipp & aria setting asian tne oraer pased by the ri%A Triounal, Mysore, datea 2,S,988, etc. hi Lstr coming or for hear r this y, the Court mite the folicwin.: OR]) ER This is a revision petition filed by the unsuccessft.l landlord against the ordar dated 4-10—1988 passed by the Land Reforms Appalla.te Authorby, ?!ysore, reva. ang the other dated 2—6—1988 passed by the Land Tribunal, t.ysore in case No,KLRM 4 I7O6/74—75 and thereby granting ocaipanj rights to tha 1st respondent, The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent claiming to be the tenant of the land SyNo35/1 ci. Choranahelli vil1aga Mysore Taluk, in so far as 38 guntas onlv out of 3 acres 33: quntas filed his application i.n form No,) claim— mg occunancy rights be-fore the Land TribunaL. After following the procedure, the Land Tribunal by its order rejected the claim of the tenant aoainst which an aupe al was: preferred by hin be fore the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, The La.nd Reforms Ape II ate Authori be though found thet the. Tribunal we a •1 ‘a. I i-a ml It 3 It 0 0 1 0 0 9% It. & ‘ : £ (w U i-s • p iv 0 I D 0 H. a (p 0 i-s ‘a. (p Ia. P$ I 0 e. qt 0 18J tI L y i? till I I a S 0 0 0 0 a 0 3 0 d a 3 ‘4 (pa’ & I (p 1 I.. 4 of the 1st respondent it must be in the capacity of a tenant a.nd as such as there is relationship of landlord and tenantnroceoded to orant occupancy, The learned Counsel for the petitfoner contended that this is misreading of evidence that the Appellate Authority i.n the initial sta..ge found that the Tribunal has not followed the procedure as required under the Rules and ought to have remanded the case for fresh enquiry to give opportunity to both sides or shou.d have scrutinised and read the entire mortgage deed along with the evidence which was available on record and the like statement of the parties a-nd the revenue records to come to the conc].usion as: to whether res•pon..dent No.1 was a te*nant or not, It is to be noted that the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent stated his inability to argue the cs.se on••• the g:round that the 1st respondE..nt has taken a••w..ay the entire papers: f:r...op him in th.e year 1990 itself and as such thoucth his name is shown r -. ‘ 0 a • Ifnn ‘a nI a, • ‘Is. I ‘as z t a 0 Oa a • • t ft H 0 4; Di a U b’ U a i U nao ‘a ‘a 4 ‘0 Di ‘ a a 1 a a’ • g U w a ‘a. ‘a • a a o <U ft pas a Di II Iao • a a t ‘aa a 6 a ill now claimed for the last wh4—yeers which is reflecting from 1960 Whereas in the evidence given by him before the Land Tribunai he has stated that he is cultivating the lnd for the last five to six years crior to giving his: evidence ike., 1980 also, in order to establish that there was relationship of tenant and landlord between him: and the petitioner, the 1st respondent has relied upon the lease deed which both the wuthori ties namely, the Land Tribunal and the Land Reforms Ar:nel late Authority have found not prcmred, If that is so, there was no other material placed bE.fore t1.e Tribunal by the I at. rencondent to e s.tabl.isi. his occupencv The relence olaced by the Appellate Authority on the contents of the m.ortgaa€. deed i..s without looking into the entire doct.rrent E.O: much (A. persuel.. of he entire document, it is seen that there was a mortgage transec:tion between the let re.. spondent end the: petitioner for a consideration. of A. 2., 000/— out of which Is, I ,()0()/— w.as already t.aken nefore whfrip the deed, a V 9 1 (1’ ) t 3 e ) tq t ) t , t I. I 3 1’ 4 I 0 t 3. U t 1 I. ) -P S Mysore., dated 2-6—jj.M38 rassed in case No 4 KLRM. 1706fl4—75. granting occurancy to the petitioner s upheld 4 Sd! JUDGE NSU/