1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3698 OF 2010 Smt.Parvatibai Barku Katare & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Smt.Laxmibai Waman Patil .. Respondent Mr.R.A.Thorat for the Petitioners. Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the Respondent. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE: 15TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners have taken an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai. The revision application was filed by the Respondent herein before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, by which, the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal declaring the Respondent as an agricultural tenant on the tiller’s day was set aside. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by the impugned order, restored the order of Agricultural Lands Tribunal by which the Respondent was declared as a tenant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Respondent relied upon the order of declaration of tenancy dated 30th April, 1973 in the Tenancy Case No.13 of 1972, but a copy of the said order was never produced on record. The second submission is that there was a surrender by the Respondent in the proceedings under section 70 2 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. The submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It appears that it is the stand of the petitioners that in fact they had preferred an appeal against the decision dated 30th April, 1973 in the Tenancy Case No.13 of 1972 declaring the Respondent as a tenant. Moreover, the petitioners have relied upon the alleged surrender of tenancy by the Respondents on the basis of the subsequent order dated 28th March, 1994. 3. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that there was no lawful surrender of tenancy rights by the Respondent in accordance with section 15 of the said Act. The perusal of the order dated 28th March, 1994 of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal makes it clear that there was no legal surrender by the Respondents and the alleged surrender is based only on the statement of the Respondent. The Tribunal has rightly discarded the case of surrender. Hence no fault can be found with the impugned order. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)