Ramchandra Sitaram Supanekar and Ors. v. Uttamrao Yashwant Khot and Ors.

7. Yashshree Shankar Tope Petitioner no.1 to 7 are original Appellants before S.D.O. Satara. The Petitioner nos. 3 to 7 are residing at House No.68, Bhavani Peth, Satara, Dist-Satara. -..Petitioners Versus. (deceased) through his heirs and legal representative, katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 3 of 29 Tal.Karad, Dist-Satara.....Respondents Mr. S.P. Thorat, for the Petitioners. Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar with Ms. Gargi Warunjikar for Respondents. CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. RESERVED ON: 04 APRIL 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON: 16 APRIL 2025. JUDGMENT:

1. Petitioners have filed this Petition challenging the judgment and order dated 6 December 1997 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, (MRT) allowing the Revision Application preferred by the Respondents and setting aside the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) dated 31 January 1994. The SDO had allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner and had set aside Tahsildar’s order dated 7 October 1993 declaring Respondents as tenants in respect of the land in question. Thus, the net result of the order passed by the MRT is that tenancy claim of Respondents in respect of the land has been upheld. katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 4 of 29

2. The case has a chequered history. Agricultural land bearing Gat No.3273 (new Gat No.396) admeasuring 50 R. and Gat No.836 (new Gat No.125) admeasuring 1 H. 53 R. situated at village Masur, Taluka Karad, District Satara is the subject matter of the Petition. Both the pieces of lands were initially owned by Bhagirathibai Tope and Bajrang Balwant Tope. After death of the parents, their son Shankar Bajrang Tope became owner of both the pieces of land and his name was apparently entered in the revenue records as owner. Uttamrao Yashwant Khot (Uttamrao) claimed tenancy in respect of both the pieces of lands claiming that he was cultivating the same since the year 1965-66. He filed Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982 under provisions of Section 70(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) in which he admitted that though he was cultivating the land since the year 1965-66, his name was never mutated in the revenue records in ‘cultivation’ column. He pleaded that Sunil Shrirang Rasal purchased land bearing Gat No.3273 on 16 July 1982 whereas Ramchandra Sitaram Supanekar (Petitioner No.1) purchased land bearing Gat No.836 on 16 July 1982 from Shankar Bajrang Tope and got their respective names mutated in the revenue records. Uttamrao alleged that Sunil Rasal and Ramchandra Supanekar started intervening with his possession of lands bearing Gat Nos.3273 and 836 which gave cause of action for Uttamrao to file Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982. Uttamrao therefore sought a declaration that he was cultivating both the pieces of land as tenant and sought injunction against Sunil Rasal and Ramchandra Supanekar from obstructing his possession. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, Karad, (TAK) allowed Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982 by his judgment and order dated 20 August 1985 declaring Uttamrao as a tenant in respect of both the pieces of lands. Petitioner No.1 alongwith heirs of Shankar Bajrang Tope filed Appeal before the katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 5 of 29 SDO, Satara, challenging the order of TAK dated 20 August 1985. The SDO proceeded to allow the Appeal inter alia holding that Uttamrao could not prove his claim of tenancy. The SDO set aside the order passed by the TAK by his order dated 22 January 1987. Uttamrao filed Revision Application before the MRT which came to be partly allowed by judgment and order dated 21 December 1988 observing that Sunil Rasal and Ramchandra Supanekar had applied before TAK for transfer of the case and District Collector had directed Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982 to be heard by Tehsildar and not by TAK and ignoring the said order of transfer, TAK had proceeded to decide the tenancy case. The MRT therefore set aside the orders passed by the SDO as well as TAK and remanded the proceedings to Tehsildar, Karad for decision of Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982 afresh.

3. In the remanded proceedings, evidence of Uttamrao's son Ravindrakumar was recorded. Similarly, statement of Petitioner Ramchandra Supanekar was also recorded. Tehsildar proceeded to allow Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982 by judgment and order dated 7 October 1993 holding that Uttamrao was a tenant in respect of both the pieces of lands bearing Gat Nos.3273 and 836.

4. Both Sunil Rasal and Ramchandra Supanekar filed Tenancy Appeal No.39 of 1993 before the SDO challenging Tehsildar's order dated 7 October 1993. The SDO allowed the Appeal of duo and set aside Tehsildar's order dated 7 October 1993 vide his judgment and order dated 31 January 1994. The heirs of Uttamrao filed Revision before the MRT, which has been allowed by judgment and order dated 6 December 1997 and the MRT has set aside SDO's order and confirmed Tehsildar's order dated 7 October 1993. This is how tenancy claim of Uttamrao has been finally upheld under provisions katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 6 of 29 of Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act. Aggrieved by MRT's order dated 6 December 1997, Ramchandra Supanekar as well Sunil Rasal have jointly filed the present Petition.

5. Initially by order dated 18 April 1998, this Court dismissed the Petition by upholding the order of MRT. However, Review Petition No.6583 of 1998 was filed by the Petitioners, in which both the sides consented for recall of order dated 18 April 1998. Accordingly, the Petition was restored and admitted by order dated 7 October 1998.

6. During pendency of the Petition, it appears that disputes between Sunil Shrirang Rasal and heirs of Uttamrao got settled and heirs of Uttamrao purchased land bearing Gat No.3276 from Sunil Rasal in the year 2008. Therefore, there is no dispute about tenancy rights of Uttamrao/his heirs in land bearing Gat No.3276. Sunil Rasal has sold the land bearing Gat No.3276 to the heirs of Uttamrao. Therefore, now the dispute is restricted to only land bearing Gat No.836 (new Gat No.125) admeasuring 1 H. 53 R. which is purchased by Petitioner No.1-Ramchandra Sitrama Supanekar from Shankar Tope, and who disputes tenancy right of heirs of Uttamrao in that piece of land.

7. Mr. Thorat, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners, who are now heirs of Ramchandra Sitaram Supanekar would submit that the MRT has grossly erred in setting aside the order passed by the SDO and recognizing tenancy rights of Uttamrao. He would submit that admittedly, there is no rent agreement/note or rent receipt evidencing creation of tenancy in Uttamrao's favour at any point of time. That Uttamrao could not produce even a single receipt showing payment of rent. That names of Shankar Tope consistently remained katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 7 of 29 recorded in revenue records not just as owner but also as cultivator. That the claim of cultivation of land by Uttamrao since 1965-66 was fallacious as Uttamrao's son Ravindrakumar admitted in his crossexamination that Uttamrao was taking education in college at Karad at that times and later had shifted to Pune for a job. He would take me through the cross-examination of Ravindrakumar Uttamrao Khot in which specific admissions are given about non-execution of any written agreement of tenancy. He would submit that Uttamrao actually was brother of Bhagirathibai. That Bhagirathibai's mother had adopted Uttamrao and the relationship between Bhagiratibai and Uttamrao was that of sister and brother. That additionally, Uttamrao was also real cousin brother of Bhagirathibai. He would rely upon provisions of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act in support of his contention that mere cultivation of land by relative does not make such relative deemed tenant. He would submit that Uttamrao's son repeatedly gave admissions about relationship between his father and Bhagirathibai. Mr. Thorat would therefore submit that the tenancy claim of Uttamrao was therefore required to be rejected.

8. Mr. Thorat would further submit that there is no semblance of evidence of payment of rent by Uttamrao to Bhagirathibai or Shankar Tope at any point of time. That even if one letter evidencing payment of Rs.2,000/ is to be considered, the payment was in capacity as a relative and not as a tenant. He would rely upon Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLR Code) in support of his contention that it is obligatory on the part of any person in occupation of the land to issue intimation of his possession to the revenue authorities. That it is inconceivable that Uttamrao had not taken any steps for 15-16 long years for mutation of his name as possessor and cultivator of the land. He would submit that even if katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 8 of 29 some documents relating to land bearing Gat No.3276 are to be accepted, there is absolutely no evidence of creation of tenancy, payment of rent or personal cultivation of the land bearing Gat No.836. He would therefore submit that qua the land admeasuring 1 H 53 R in Gat No.836, the tenancy claim deserves to be outrightly rejected. He would submit that false tenancy claim was raised only after realizing that the original landlord Shankar Tope had sold both the pieces of land to outsiders (Rasal and Supanekar). That false tenancy claim was raised after realizing that the original landlord was no longer interested in defending the tenancy. He would submit that findings recorded by the MRT are clearly perverse as the same are not borne out by evidence on record. In support of his contentions, Mr. Thorat would rely upon following judgments:

1. Appalal Alias Ismail Ibrahim Vs. Shaba Shiraj Mulla & Ors.[1]

2. Mahadeo @ Mahadu Haribhau Nigune Vs. Indulal Ranchhoddas Shah & Ors.[2]

3. Smt. Anusayabai Ganpati Gaikwad(deceased) Vs.

4. Bansrajidevi wd/o Bhuval Singh Ramniranjan Singh& Ors. Vs. M/S Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.[4]

5. Narayan Laxman Patil Vs. Gala Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.[5]

9. On above broad submissions, Mr.Thorat would pray for setting aside the order passed by MRT.

10. The Petition is opposed by Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. He would submit that the MRT has rightly appreciated the evidence on record for setting aside SDO's 1 1999 Vol. 101 (3) Bom L.N. 388 2 2001(1) ALL MR 222 3 2003(3) ALL MR 1000 4 2006(6) Mh.L.J.95 5 2016(14) SCC 388 katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 9 of 29 order and for upholding the tenancy claim of Uttamrao. That there is voluminous evidence on record about payment of land revenue, cultivation of crops and payment of rent by Uttamrao. He would submit that land bearing Gat No.3273 was bagayat (irrigated land) whereas land bearing Gat No.836 was jirayat (non-irrigated land). That therefore substantial evidence was produced about cultivation of crops in respect of land bearing Gat No.3273 and the purchaser Sunil Rasal ultimately gave up the claim qua that land and sold the same to the Respondents in the year 2008. That the entire evidence was required to be taken as a whole and cannot now be split as the tenancy claim was wrongly disputed in respect of both pieces of land by raising same contentions. That it is inconceivable that tenancy claim qua land bearing Gat No.3273 is upheld whereas similar claim regarding other piece of land bearing Gat No.836 is put to more rigorous test of production of separate and independent piece of evidence. Nonetheless according to Dr. Warunjikar, the Respondents have discharged the burden of producing relevant documentary evidence to demonstrate cultivation of land bearing Gat No.836. He would particularly rely on letter dated 3 August 1976 by which Uttamrao had sent Rs.2,000/- towards rent to landlord Shankar Tope. He would also rely upon receipts relating to payment of land revenue in support of tenancy claim of Uttamrao. He would submit that for proving tenancy claim, it is not necessary to produce rent agreement/receipt and that tenancy claim can be upheld even on the basis of proof of personal cultivation. That in the present case, there is ample evidence of personal cultivation of Gat No.836 by Uttamrao Khot.

11. Dr. Warunjikar would further submit that the theory of Uttamrao Khot being brother of Bhagirathibai is totally fallacious. He katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 10 of 29 would submit that relationship between Bhagirathibai and Uttamrao is sought to inferred on the basis of alleged adoption of Uttamrao by the mother of Bhagirathibai. That therefore Uttamrao cannot be treated as a family member within the meaning of Section 4A of the Tenancy Act. That adopted son is a part of distant unit for the purpose of determining the tenancy claim. Dr. Warunjikar would accordingly pray for dismissal of the Petition.

12. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.

13. Uttamrao claimed tenancy rights in two pieces of lands bearing Gat Nos.3273 and 836. In his application filed in Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982, Uttamrao pleaded that both the pieces of land were originally owned by Bhagirathibai and Bajrang Tope. After death of Bhagiratibai and Bajrang Tope, name of his son Shankar Bajrang Tope was mutated to the revenue records. Uttamrao Khot claimed that Bhagirathibai and Bajrang Tope were not agriculturists and used to reside outside the village for their service. That therefore, both the pieces of land were given for cultivation as tenant to Uttamrao, 15/16 years prior to filing of Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982. Thus Uttamrao claimed possession and tenancy in both pieces of land roughly from the year 1966-67. Uttamrao Khot claimed that he used to take crops in land bearing Gat No.3273. In the year 1982, he cultivated sugarcane in area of one acre and crop of rice in remaining 10 gunthas in Gat No.3273. In respect of Gat No.836, he pleaded that he took various non-irrigated crops in the same. He claimed that Shankar Bajrang Tope was permanent resident of Satara and used to operate printing press and had never cultivated either of the lands. That Shankar Tope illegally got his name mutated in the cultivation column in the year 1981-82 and thereafter sold Gat No.3273 to Sunil katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 11of 29 Rasal and Gat No.836 to Ramchandra Supanekar. That both the purchasers mutated their names to the revenue records. Uttamrao claimed that both the purchasers started obstructing his possession, on account of which he filed Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982 before TAK. The Application preferred by Uttamrao was shown to have been filed under provisions of Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act. However the prayers made by Uttamrao in his Application read thus: त्यांचे वहि वाहि स अर्जदार यांची हिवनंति अशी की १) अर्जदार ा कलम १ या ील र्जहिमनीमद्ये प्रत्यक्ष क ु ळ म् णून वहि वा कर आलेला आ े. सामनेवाले २ व ३ यांनी बेकारदेशीर खरेदीपात्राच्या आधारे अर्जदार याने कलाम १ या ील वहि वा ीस रक करू नये अगर दांडगाई ने कब्ज़ा घेऊ नये अशी सामनेवाला न. २ व ३ याना ाकीद देणे यावी. २) या अर्जाचा संपूण[4] खच अर्जदार यास सामनेवाला यांच्या कडून देवावा ३) र्जरूर े अर्ज दुरुस् ीस परवानगी असावी ४) इ र योग्य व न्यायाचे ुक ू म को ाने करावे. येणे प्रमाणे अर्जदार यास फ ै सला हिमळवा सोब र्जमीनीचे ७/१२ चे उ ारे दाखल क े लेले आ े. चौकशीचे ारखेस र्जादा लेखी व ोंडी पुरावा र्जर करणेस अर्जदार यास परवानगी असावी.

14. Mr. Thorat has sought to suggest that the application filed before TAK cannot be treated as the one seeking declaration of tenancy under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act. There was no prayer in the Application seeking declaration of tenancy. The main prayer was for seeking injunction against Shri. Rasal and Shri. Supanekar from obstructing his possession as he was possessing the lands as tenant. However, ignoring the manner in which prayers in the Application were couched, I proceed to examine whether Uttamrao has established his claim of tenancy in the lands.

15. As observed above, Uttamrao succeeded in the first round of litigation by securing declaration of tenancy in his favour by order katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 12 of 29 dated 20 August 1985, which was set aside by the SDO by order dated 22 January 1987. The MRT remanded the proceedings by order dated 21 December 1988 for fresh decision, not by TAK, but by Tehsildar. In the remanded proceedings, Uttamrao once again succeeded before Tehsildar and secured declaration of his tenancy vide order dated 7 October 1993. Tehsildar proceeded to accept the tenancy claim by recording following finding: मुद्रा क्र. ३: दावा र्जमीन अर्जदार यांनी सामनेवाले यांना क ु ळ क्काने हिदले बद्दल लेखी करार वगैरे र्जर क े ला ना ी परं ु े त्यांचे र्जबाबा ं ा र्जहिमनी क ु ळ असलेचे कबुल कर ा. या हिवरुद्ध सामनेवाला यांनी अर्जदार े ं ा र्जहिमनी क ु ळ नसल्याबद्दल लेखी ोंडी पुरावा र्जर क े ला ना ी, यावरून मुद्रा क्र. ३ ा ोकार ी आ े.

16. Thus, Tehsildar held that though there was no written agreement for creation of tenancy, creation of tenancy was admitted in the statement and that the opposite party did not produce any evidence about non-existence of tenancy of Uttamrao. In my view, the Tehsildar did not conduct proper enquiry while upholding tenancy rights of Uttamrao. Tenancy case was filed by Uttamrao and it was his burden to prove existence of tenancy. He could not have upheld the tenancy rights of Uttamrao by holding that the opposite side could not disprove existence of such tenancy rights. Further finding of admission about existence of tenancy is totally perverse as I do not find any admission on the part of the opposite parties in respect of tenancy rights of Uttamrao. In the remanded proceedings, it appears that evidence was recorded and Ramchandra Sitaram Supanekar did not admit that Uttamrao was tenant of Bhagirathibai Bajrang Tope or of Shankar Bajrang Tope. On the contrary, he specifically led evidence that Shankar Bajrang Tope was personally cultivating the land. Tehsildar had before him evidence of two witnesses running into 72 pages, but proceeded to answer the vital issue of existence of katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 13 of 29 tenancy rights by recording reasons running into only in 4 to 5 lines. The nature of enquiry conducted by Tehsildar was clearly improper and does not appeal to this Court.

17. So far as Issue No.4 before the Tehsildar is concerned, the same was about existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Issue No.4 was thus, clearly co-related to Issue No.3, which was about grant of land to Uttamrao as tenant. Issue No.4, which again was a vital issue, came to be cursorily decided by Tehsildar by recording following terse findings:- मुद्दा क्र. ४ - सा. वाले े कराड येथे को ा कामास ो े या उल अर्जदार े मसूर (वाण्याची वाडी) येथे कायमपणे रा ो े. सा. वाले यांनी ं ा र्जमीन े स्व ः कर ा याचे बद्दल का ी पुरावा लेखी / ोंडी हिदला ना ी. या उल संबंधी र्जहिमनीचे सन. ७५-७६ े ८०-८१ चे उ ारे पा ा सदर ७/१२ ील वहि वा दार सदर कोरे सोडले आ े वहि वा ीबद्दल ७५-७६ सालापासून क्रार आ े े सिसद्ध ो े त्यानं र १९८१-८२ साली वहि वा दार सदरी श्री शंकर बर्जरंग ोपे याचे नाव दाखल क े ले आ े परं ु सदरचे नाव म ाराष्ट्र र्जहिमन म सूल हिनयम ३१ प्रमाणे चौकशी ोवून दाखल क े ले अगर कसे याच्याबद्दल का ी ी पुरावा लेखी / ोंडी हिदलेला ना ी यावरून सदर र्जहिमनीस अर्जदार यांचेच कब्र्जे व वहि वा ीस क ु ल क्काने असलेच सिसद्ध ो े. त्याच प्रमाणे ं ा र्जहिमन सा. वाले नं. १ यांनी सा. वाले क्र. ३ यांना हिवकलेवर अर्जदार यांनी आपल्या क ु ळ क्कस बाधा येऊ नये म् णून कराड येथील हिदवाणी न्यायालया सा. वाले यांचे हिवरुद्ध ाहिकदीचा दावा हिद. २०. ८. ८२ रोर्जी लावून लगेच हिद. १५.९. ८२ रोर्जी व १४.८. ८२ रोर्जी लाठी मसूर यांर्जकडे आपले नाव ं ा र्जहिमनीचे ७/१२ स क ु ळखंड सदरी क ु ळ म् णून प्रत्यक्ष वहि वा ीप्रमाणे दाखल व् ावे म् णून क े लेल्या अर्जाची प्र दाखल क े ली. सेच ं ा र्जहिमनी ी ग. न. ३२७३ पैकी ऊस सह्याद्री स कारी साखर कारखान्यास घालून त्याची हिबले अर्जदार यांनी घे ले बद्दलच्या पावत्या अर्जदार यांनी र्जर क े ल्या आ े. म् णर्जे सदर कामी अर्जदार व सा.वाले यांच्या क ु ळ व र्जमीन मालक असे ना े असलेच सिसद्ध ो े.

18. Thus, except recording reasons of Shankar being employed in court at Karad and Uttamrao residing at village-Masur, Tahsildar has not recorded any independent findings for accepting landlordtenant relationship. The finding of Tahsildar i.e. 'सा. वाले यांनी ं ा र्जमीन े स्व ः कर ा याचे बद्दल का ी पुरावा लेखी / ोंडी हिदला ना ी.’ is unsustainable as the burden of proving personal cultivation was on the tenant and it was not for the landlord to prove the negative. The further finding that ‘या उल संबंधी र्जहिमनीचे सन. ७५-७६ े ८०-८१ चे उ ारे पा ा सदर ७/१२ ील वहि वा दार सदर कोरे सोडले आ े वहि वा ीबद्दल ७५-७६ सालापासून क्रार आ े े सिसद्ध ो े त्यानं र १९८१-८२ साली katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 14 of 29 वहि वा दार सदरी श्री शंकर बर्जरंग ोपे याचे नाव दाखल क े ले आ े परं ु सदरचे नाव म ाराष्ट्र र्जहिमन म सूल हिनयम ३१ प्रमाणे चौकशी ोवून दाखल क े ले अगर कसे याच्याबद्दल का ी ी पुरावा लेखी / ोंडी हिदलेला ना ी यावरून सदर र्जहिमनीस अर्जदार यांचेच कब्र्जे व वहि वा ीस क ु ल क्काने असलेच सिसद्ध ो े.’ is again unsustainable. Here again, the burden of proving personal cultivation was squarely on the shoulders of Uttamrao and even if the ‘cultivation’ column was blank, the same would not ipso facto mean that the land was cultivated by Uttamrao. If the cultivator column is blank and entry of crops is made, the presumption is that the holder of the land has cultivated those corps.

19. I have perused the original record and proceedings. Along with his application in Tenancy Case No.5 of 1982, Uttamrao had filed 7/12 extracts of land bearing Gat No.3273 and 836. In both the extracts, name of Bajrang Tope is recorded as the holder. In Village Specimen No.12, various kind of crops are reflected from 1975-76 to 1980-81. However, against the column ‘र्जहिमन करणाऱ्याचे नाव' there is vertical line upto 1980-81. For the year 1981-82, name of Shankar Bajrang Tope is mentioned as the cultivator. It is on the basis of these 7/12 extracts, the Tahsildar held that the name of person cultivating the land was left blank from 1975-76 till 1980-81 and that the same came to be added for the first time in 1981-82.

20. It is Uttamrao’s case that though he was cultivating the land personally, his name was never mutated in the ‘cultivation’ column and that Shankar Tope, who was otherwise working as Nazir in Court at Karad and that he had neither knowledge nor equipment for cultivation and took disadvantage of that position and got his name entered in the ‘cultivator’ column for the first time in the year 1981-

82. According to him, this was done few days before selling the lands to Sunil Rasal and Ramchandra Supanekar. The Tahsildar questioned katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 15 of 29 recording of name of Shankar Bajrang Tope in the ‘cultivator’ column and held that there was no evidence of conduct of enquiry under Rule 31 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules. The Tehsildar further held that after sale of both the pieces of lands, Uttamrao Khot filed injunction suit before Civil Court at Karad and got his name mutated in the revenue records by filing applications dated 15 September 1982 and 14 August 1982. Tehsildar also relied upon receipts produced by Uttamrao regarding supply of sugarcane to the sugar factory. This is how Tehsildar proceeded to allow Uttamrao’s application in the remanded proceedings.

21. The SDO proceeded to set aside Tehsildar’s order holding that no prayer was made by Uttamrao in his application for declaration as tenant under Section 70(b) of the Act and that Tehsildar had erred in declaring him as tenant in absence of such a prayer. SDO relied upon 7/12 extracts of 1992-93 to hold that Sunil Rasal and Ramchandra Supanekar started personally cultivating the lands. He further held that rent receipt dated 25 October 1962 could not be accepted as evidence as no entry in revenue records was made in the year 1962-63 if the land was really granted in tenancy in that year. The SDO also criticised Uttamrao for maintaining silence by not getting his name recorded in the ‘cultivation’ column for 20 long years. SDO therefore refused to accept existence of landlord-tenant relationship and set aside Tehsildar’s order vide his order dated 31 January 1994.

22. When the proceedings reached MRT, the revision has been allowed by recording following findings:- “At very outset the application u/se.70B which was filed by the present revision applicants father before Tahsildar, Karad in which it is clearly mentioned that claim U/sec.70-B so also in para 3 of the said petition he has claimed tenancy and alleged that Respondents katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 16 of 29 owner i.e. landlord who, is residing at Satara. The prayer of the said application also shows that he is claiming tenancy u/sec.70-B. So far as page No.13,15, 453, 455 and 457 are concerned, there is a name of Uttamrao Yeshwantrao Khot as a cultivator of the land in dipuste and at page No.259, 261, 263, 265, 273 and 275 all these documents infer that land revenue is paid by Uttamrao (deceased tenant) and land revenue receipts are in respect of disputed land. So also at page No.323 a letter is sent by landlord to the tenant that certain amount is received. At page No.357 of lower court’s file there is a letter and demand of money by landlord to the tenant. At page No.359 a letter was issued stating that tenant has deposited Rs.2000/- with the Bank and obtained a demand draft of Rs.2,000/and it has been sent to the landlord. So also sugarcane receipt in favour of tenant is at page 443 which includes the disputed Gat No. So also at page No.449 there are two cane receipts and there is inclusion of Gat No.3273 which is disputed land. The said cane receipt is in the name of Uttamrao, the deceased tenant. So all above documents like 7/12 extract, revenue record, rent receipts and sugarcane receipts goes to prove that the deceased Uttamrao Khot was tenant on the land in dispute. When Uttam is not concerned with the land, the question is why he has interested to deposit land revenue why his name is entered in VII.XII. So also why he has deposited the amount of Rs.2,000/- and why the disputed land is included on the sugarcane receipt of the tenant? Obviously the tenant is related witht he disputed land as a tenant and he is cultivating the land since 1962 as he has claimed. On the other hand page No.249 there is a certificate issued by the Talathi. Certificate is that purchasers Supnekar is not resident ofthe said village and he is not agriculturists. At page 253 the Ramchandra Supnekar the Opponent is commission agent at Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee at Karad. So also there is one Certificate(PAge-255) which shows that Ramchandra Sitaram Supnekar is not agriculturist before 1982 and he used to reside at Umbraj. So all these documents shows that the present opponents who are purchasers are not agriculturists, and a sham and bogus sale deed is executed in favour of non-agriculturists, only to deprive the present revision applicant from their tenancy rights. So far the igredients of Sec.70-B are concerned. The present revision application fully and with a corroborative evidence prove their tenancy beyond reasonable doubt and I agree with the arguments advanced byt he advocate for revision applicants. Sub-Divisional Officer has ignored all these docuemnts which were on record before him the reasons best known to him only. So far as Sale deed dated 16.7.1982 is concerned, there is no effect of sale deed on the right of tenancy of revision applicant. So I am of opinion that the Sub Divisional Officer did not considered the documents properly and I have no alternative except to set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer. Whereas the A.L.T. Karad rightly observed, rightly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that present revision applicants are the tenants of the disputed land. Hence I am constrained to interfere int he order of Sub Divisional Officer and confirm the judgment of ALT Karad. katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 17 of 29

23. MRT has thus proceeded on an assumption that Uttamrao’s name was recorded as cultivator of the lands in dispute. He has referred to documents at page Nos.13, 15, 453, 455 and 457. However, documents at Sr. Nos.13 and 15 of record and proceedings are 7/12 extracts of Gat Nos.3273 and 836 and in both the 7/12 extracts, name of Uttamrao is not recorded in ‘cultivator’ column. As held above, there is a vertical line in the ‘cultivator’ column from 1975-76 to 1980- 81 and name of Shankar Bajrang Tope is recorded as cultivator in 1981-82. Thus the finding of MRT that Uttamrao was cultivator of the land as per 7/12 extracts is perverse.

24. The document at page 453 of the R&P is the receipt issued by the Sugar Factory in respect of Gat No.3273 on 2 April 1976. The document at page 457 is about transfer of shares from the name of Uttamrao Yashwantrao Khot to Ravindrakumar Uttramrao Khot and the same is irrelevant for deciding the issue at hand. The MRT has thereafter relied on documents at page Nos.259, 261, 263, 265, 273 and 275 to infer that land revenue was paid by Uttamrao. Though, most of the receipts for payment of land revenue do not reflect Gat Number of the land, all the receipts indicate the name of Bhagirathi Balvant Tope followed by the name of Uttamrao Tope. The fact that name of Bhagirathi and Uttamrao are borne on same receipt would clearly indicate that the same are in respect of disputed lands in question. The issue however is whether payment of land revenue by Uttamrao on few occasions would make him a tenant? This is discussed in latter part of the judgment.

25. The MRT has thereafter relied on letter dated 3 August 1976 issued by Uttamrao Yashwant Khot which reads thus:katkam/neeta/megha Page No. 18 of 29