wp9565-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9565 OF 2010 Shri Hari Shantaram Parab .. Petitioner versus Shri Vitthal L. Parab & Ors .. Respondents Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/by M/s.Khandeparkar & Associates for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard Mr.Khandeparkar for petitioner. The petitioner is unsuccessful revisional applicant before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The revision application which has been dismissed by the impugned order was directed against the determination by the Agricultural Land Tribunal dated 6th February 1987 and the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, SDO, Sawantwadi dated 3rd March 2002. It is the case of the petitioners before me that the suit for injunction was filed against the petitioner being Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 1977. The respondents contended in that suit wp9565-10.doc 2 that the lands originally belonged to Vasudev Jabe. Father of the petitioner purchased half portion in the land, 1/4th was purchased by one Parab and 1/4th was purchased by Narayan Parab, who were persons claiming through respondents original plaintiff. Half portion of the entire property was in possession of the original respondents – plaintiffs as a tenant. The remaining half was in possession of Patil and Parab as tenant. Tenancy of Patil was terminated and possession was obtained. Half portion that was belonging to the petitioner was claimed to be in possession of the respondents family as tenant. There was house which was allegedly located in the disputed land. It was alleged that petitioners' father was receiving rent from the respondents. He had filed tenancy case No.377 of 1956 for possession against the respondents, which was not prosecuted. Thus, the claim of the respondents was that they are tenants in this agricultural land and, therefore, an attempt made to disturb their possession needs to be challenged and that is how the suit was filed. In the written statement that was filed in the suit the stand of the petitioner is that the lands were originally belonging to one Thakur. One Laxman obtained 4 gunthas out of S.No.81 and Hissa No.6 and 8 wp9565-10.doc 3 gunthas portion out of S.No.84, Hissa No.9 on lease and he has constructed house in the land. Remaining portion was purchased by the petitioners father from the said Thakur. Thus, partially admitting the claim for tenancy and disputing the other, the written statement read that the claim of the respondents over 12 Gunthas portion is admitted but the rest of it is not in their possession as agricultural tenancy. It is because of this stand taken in the written statement that the issue that was framed by the civil court and referred to the tenancy authorities cast the burden on the petitioners to prove that only 12 gunthas land out of suit property is in possession of the respondents as tenants. 2] It is not possible to agree with Mr.Khandeparkar that the issue should not have been framed in this manner. The authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had before them the issue as framed by the trial court and the reference made over to them. It was not possible to go behind the order framing such issue and the issue itself in the limited jurisdiction of the tenancy authorities. They, therefore, rightly proceeded on the basis that it was for the petitioners to wp9565-10.doc 4 prove that the claim of tenancy is partly sustainable. 3] The first contention of Mr.Khandeparkar, therefore, must fail. As far as second contention is concerned, it has been concurrently held that the rent receipts that have been produced on record would go to show that the entire property and not just 12 gunthas was in possession of the respondents as tenants. They have produced the rent receipts right from 1947 till 1956 and upto the relevant date viz., tillers day so as to substantiate the same. It is too late in the day to complain that these are merely produced and their contents are not proved. It was for the petitioners to have led the evidence to show that these receipts do not prove the case of tenancy in respect of the entire land. 4] Having allowed the production of these rent receipts and permitted them to be read in evidence, it is no longer open to the petitioner to contend that the rent receipts are not proved. All through out the rent receipts have been relied upon and in my opinion there is no perversity committed by the courts below in accepting the version of the respondents and rejecting that of the wp9565-10.doc 5 petitioners. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has considered the entire matter and after perusing the record has held that the tenancy of respondents over entire land excluding garden portion of one acre three gunthas is proved and the petitioner's contention that 12 gunthas portion is tenanted land cannot be accepted. 5] It is not a case where the finding of fact recorded concurrently can be said to be perverse so as to call for interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)