1 wp6076-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6076 OF 2010 Laxman Keshav Rawool through Power of Attorney Holder Mr.Madan L. Rawool .. Petitioner versus Vasudev Y. Naik & Ors .. Respondents Mr.A.B.Kadam i/by Nitesh B. Nevashe for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 25th July 2011. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 17th April 2006 of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sawantwadi and that of the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai dated 20th July 2009. 2 The petitioner Laxman Keshav Rawool claimed that he is a tenant of the agricultural land. He claimed that his name is recorded as a heir of the original tenant and, therefore, his claim deserves to be accepted and he is better placed than Vasudev Yashwant Naik, who is claiming to be a tenant of 2 wp6076-10.doc the property. According to him, once the name is entered as a heir of the original tenant and the proceedings are concluded, then, the petitioner’s right cannot be adversely affected by entertaining application under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Such an application being entertained at the instance of Vasudev Naik, itself goes contrary to the object and purpose that is sought to be achieved by the Tenancy Act. 3 It is not possible to accept this contention because the Sub Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal concurrently found that although the appellant, Laxman Rawool, who is the petitioner before me is claiming to be a tenant in respect of the land, there is no proof produced in the form of either tenancy agreement or tenancy receipts. On the other hand, save and except an entry in the revenue record, the material in support of the claim of tenancy, is totally lacking. As far as the 1st respondent is concerned, he has produced enough material in the form of receipts, an agreement of the year 1947 and even the power of attorney holder Gajanan Gopal Kanse, who is representing the land lords, gave a statement that the land lords have recognised not the petitioner, but, Vasudev Naik as a tenant. There are other materials as well which are referred to by both, the Sub Divisional Officer and the Tribunal. In the light of the findings of fact recorded in para 6 of the 3 wp6076-10.doc order of the Tribunal, based as they are and consistent with the materials produced, this is not fit case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)