1 14.wp1568.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1568 OF 2011 Smt. Sushila Maloji Bhabal. ....Petitioner Vs. Shri Sitaram Hiroji Tawade since deceased through legal heirs 1(a) Smt. Surekha Sitaram Tawade & ors. ....Respondents Mr. V.R. Shinde, Advocate for Petitoiner. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- NOVEMBER 11, 2011 P.C. 1. This Writ Petition has been placed for admission. Pages 38 to 46 which contains the order of the Mamalatdar in Tenancy Case are absolutely unreadable. Despite this, no objection has been raised. Irrespective of the decision of the Writ Petition the Assistant Registrar, In- charge of the Writ Petition Branch shall obtain an explanation of the concerned employee who has checked the Writ Petition and was expected to raise objection as to why the Petition was numbered with such completely unreadable copies. Explanation to be furnished within 2 weeks. 2 14.wp1568.11 2. All the 3 Authorities namely Mamlatdar who has decided Tenancy Case No. 49 of 1989, SDO who has dismissed the Tenancy Appeal No. 52 of 1990 and the learned President of the MRT, Mumbai who has dismissed the Tenancy Revision Application No. 175/B/2000 have concurrently held that the Petitioner has failed to prove her alleged tenancy. The finding of facts recorded by the Mamalatdar and affirmed by S.D.O. are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The Petitioner was not certain as to whether tenancy was in respect of 30 gunthas or 20 gunthas and there is a discrepancy in the application and the deposition. No claim was ever made by the Petitioner when a portion of the land from the suit land had been acquired by the State Government and compensation was paid to the Respondents. Not a single receipt of payment of alleged rent or not a single mutation entry showing cultivation position has been produced. No neighbouring land owner was examined by the Petitioner. Solely on the basis of one affidavit sworn by Ravindra Tawade stating that the Petitioner was allegedly paying rent of Rs. 5/- per annum, claim of the tenancy belatedly made in the year 1989 could not have been entertained and the authorities below have properly considered the legal effect of such an affidavit. 3 14.wp1568.11 3. The learned President of MRT, Mumbai has duly considered the findings of fact recorded by the Tahsildar and S.D.O. and has correctly held that no case for interference is made out even in revision under section 76 of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948 and there is no merit in the Writ Petition. Hence the same is summarily dismissed. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)