The powers of Revision entrusted to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, are practically identical with the Second Appellate powers of the High Court Under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code before it was amended by Act 104 of 1976.
Possession of the land was accordingly purported to be delivered to the landlord on 1st September, 1959 On 10th May, 1965 the landlord sold the land to a third party.
We do number have the slightest doubt that the Special Dy.
On 21st May, 1965, the tenant filed an application under Section 70 b of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for a declaration that he was the tenant of the appellant of the land in question.
The Special Deputy Collector, was of the view that the possession of the respondent was number as a tenant but as a purchaser.
The Aval Karkun by an order dated 25th August, 1965, allowed the application and sic that the respondent was a tenant of the suit land.
The land lend, thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court.
He alleged that the landlord took from him in writing a Rajinama, assuring him that his possession of the land would number he disturbed.
On 15th April, 1958, he purported to execute a deed of surrender in favour of the landlord, the appellant herein On 16th April.
1958, the landlord applied to the Mamlatdar and on 15th October, 1958, the Mamlatdar sanctioned the surrender By an order dated 1st June, 1959, the Mamlatdar directed delivery of possession of the land to the landlord.
Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948, provides for a revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against an order of the Collector on the following grounds a that the order of the Collector was companytrary to law b that the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law or c that there was a substantial defect in following the procedure provided by this Act, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
He also accepted the evidence relating to the payment of rent by the tenant.
He accepted the case of the tenant that numberwithstanding the purported surrender possession of the land companytinued with him all through.
He never gave up possession of the suit land and companytinued to be a tenant of the land.
He relied upon the evidence relating to the existence of an agreement between the parties for sale of the property and the payment of earnest money.
The landlord preferred an appeal to the Special Duty Collector who by his order dated 22nd January, 1966, set aside the order of the Aval Karkun and declared that the respondent was number the tenant of the land.
This application was opposed by the landlord It was alleged on behalf of the landlord that the tenant had given the Rajinama out of his own free will and that possession was also delivered on 10th May, 1965 from which date he was companytinuously in possession.
The tenant preferred a revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 The Tribunal set aside the order of the Special Deputy Collector and restored that of the Aval Karkun.
1436 of the extent of 3 acres 31 gunthas.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. Bapu Hari Mane, the respondent herein, was a tenant of the land in Survey No.
