Thereafter the matter was taken up to the District Deputy Collector.
The respondent alleged that he never leased the land to the appellant.
201/2 and 194/13.
On 9 July 1963 a certified companyy of the deposition in the earlier proceedings was placed on record.
The applicant is a tenant in the said land.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 13th February, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
By an order dated 31 July 1963 the Mamlatdar rejected the claim of the appellant to be.
194/13 it also appeared from the record of rights that the respondent was shown as kabzedar and the appellant as a tenant.
recorded by the Tenancy Aval Karkun in an earlier case on 10 September 1962.
Thereafter the respondent filed an application on 24 January 1963 under section 70 b of the Bombay Act for a declaration that the appellant was number tenant of the remain ing two Survey Nos.201/2 and 194/13.
194/15 and 200/29.
appellant examined himself, saying that he was a tenant of the land and he had numberother evidence to show in support of his case except the certified companyy of the statement which was produced on that day.
200/29 and 194/15 respondent said that he never kept the appellant as a tenant on the land.
The respondent said as follows The land Survey No.
On 12 April 1962 the appellant made an application under section 70 b of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act for a declaration that he was a tenant of two of the four plots of land namely, Survey Nos.
In cross examination it was suggested to the respondent that the land bearing Survey No.
200/29 and 194/15.
The Maharashtra ReVenue Tribunal however by its order dated 9 January 1967 held that the appellant was proved to be a tenant of the land.
201/2 and the appellant was shown as tenant of the same.
This application of the respondent was resisted by the appellant on the ground that he was tenant of these two survey Nos.
The Deputy ColleCtor affirmed the order of the Mamlatdar.
On that very day the.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant also relied on the extracts of the record of rights showing that the respondent was shown as Kabze dar of Survey Nos.
In regard to Survey No.
a tenant.
The Deputy Collector by his order dated 27 June 1966 upheld the Mamlatdars order.
The Tribunal by order dated 19 March, 1954 rejected the claim of the appellant to tenancy in respect of the land companyered by Survey Nos.
N. Lokur and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant.
1 on 14 June 1946.
V. Gupte, R.B. Datar and Sanjeev Kumar for Respondents.
The appellant obtained special leave from this Court.
This dispute between the appellant and the respondent in regard to alleged tenancy claim for these two survey numbers went up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
643 of 1967.
201/2 situate in Balkum belongs to me in Balkum.
201/2 belonged to the respondent and that the appellant is a tenant in the land.
201/2, 194/13, 200/29 and 194/15.
On this evidence the Mamlatdar held that the appellant was number Cultivating the lands as a tenant of the respondent and he declared that the appellant was number a tenant.
The re spondent further said that he came to know about entry in the record of rights for the years 1955 56 on the strength of mutation alleged to have been made on 30 January 1956 and sanctioned on 13 November 1956.
The matter was heard by the Mamlatdar.
Before the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector the respondent examined himself.
The appellants wife sold this land to respondent No.
The High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal.
He was cross examined and his attention was drawn in cross examination towards an alleged admission about the appellant being his tenant in the depo sition.
The previous deposition was number shown to him on that day.
6/61 62 dated 10 September 1962, the respondent gave evi dence in regard to dispute between the respondent and the appellant in relation to Survey Nos.
The respondent denied that he made.any admission.
The appellant was owner of land companyered by Survey No.
I do number take the rent in respect of the said land I have prior to 15 20 years purchased this land from Sita ram Bhau.
The respondent thereupon took the matter to the High Court under Article 227.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 13 February 1968of the High Court of Bombay.
1997 of 1968.
