JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---This is a petition filed by the landlord against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Poona, allowing the application filed by the tenant---respondent No. 1 and setting aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and affirmed by the Special Deputy Collector that the respondent No. 1 was not a tenant of the petitioner. The suit lands are situate within the Municipal limits of Barsi town, Taluka Barsi, District Sholapur. As they are situate within the Municipal limits, provisions of sections 32 to 32-R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 are not applicable to the suit fields. It was the case of the respondents No. 1 that he was a tenant of the suit land for about 15 years and that he is an illiterate agriculturist. The petitioner in collusion with the Talathi got his name entered in the record of rights in the column of "cultivation". The petitioner also interfered with the possession of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner also entered into an agreement of sale of these lands with respondent No. 2. When the respondent No. 1 came to know about all these facts, he filed a suit against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barsi, praying for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 from interfering with his possession. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 put in appearance. The petitioner disputed the respondent No. 1s claim as a tenant. It was submitted that right from 1966 he has been in possession of the suit fields and that he himself has been cultivating them. He has also been paying land revenue and the respondent No. 1 has nothing to do with these fields. In view of these pleadings, the learned Judge framed one of the issues : "Does plaintiff prove that he was a tenant in the suit land since last 15 years and hence in the year 1964-65?" The learned Judge referred that issue to the Tahsildar, Barsi under section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. On receipt of that reference, the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was not a tenant in the suit land for the last 15 years and also in the year 1965-66. On receipt of that reference, the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was not a tenant in the suit land for the last 15 years and also in the year 1965-66. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an appeal to the Special Deputy Collector who also affirmed the finding recorded by the Tahsildar. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an application for revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal who observed that the respondent No. 1 was a tenant prior to 1966 and there is no evidence on record to show that his surrender has been verified by the Tahsildar and as such there was no valid surrender. He, therefore, observed that in absence of that valid surrender, the respondent No. 1 should be deemed to be continued in possession. He further ordered that the mutation entry was effected without Wardi being given to the respondent No. 1 and any entry in the record of rights, on the basis of that mutation entry, was of no consequence and no importance could be attached to the entries made in the record of right and the authorities below have committed an error in relying on those entries. He, therefore, allowed the application for revision, and set aside the findings of facts recorded by the courts below. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Lalit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that it was not open to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence and set aside the findings of facts recorded by the courts below. In this particular case, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has infact re-appreciated the evidence and reversed the findings of facts recorded by the courts below. In my opinion, the submission deserves to be accepted. It is very well settled that it is not open to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to re-appreciate evidence and reverse the findings of facts recorded by the authorities below. In this particular case, both the Tahsildar and the Special Deputy Collector have taken every fact into consideration and then recorded the findings. The Special Deputy Collector who was final Court of facts has observed :--- "The learned Pleader for the appellant vehemently contended that in fact the appellant was never dispossessed of the suit lands and that entries made in V.F. VII-A are collusive. The Special Deputy Collector who was final Court of facts has observed :--- "The learned Pleader for the appellant vehemently contended that in fact the appellant was never dispossessed of the suit lands and that entries made in V.F. VII-A are collusive. The contention could have perhaps gained some force had there been entry as "Khudd" for a year or two. But the record shows that there are similar continuous entries from the year 1956-57 right upto the year 1963-64. It is possible to win even the Talathi in so far as entries for a year or two are concerned but continuous wining over and making false entries is not possible as there are other Inspecting Officers above the Talathi." So far as notice regarding mutation entry is concerned, the Special Deputy Collector has observed :--- "It is true that the application made by the respondent landlord is at present missing but that does not mean that no such application was made. On going through the Mutation Entry No. 4671 it is seen that the Tenancy A.K. Barsi who certified the entry has done it after serving the notice. He must have at the same time seen the original application as it was on that basis that the mutation entry was made. Besides it appears that the applicant was present before the Certifying Officer and admitted the correctness of the entry. Against these convincing endorsements on the mutation entry it would be risky to suppose that no notice was served on the appellant and that the appellant was not present and did not admit the correctness of the entries." Therefore, the contention of the tenant that the mutation entry and the entries in the record of rights were made behind his back or without notice to him cannot be sustained. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion on that basis that the petitioner was in possession of the suit field. The right of respondent No. 1 to ask for possession was barred by section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In view of these findings, it was not really open to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence. The right of respondent No. 1 to ask for possession was barred by section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In view of these findings, it was not really open to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence. The learned member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reversed the entries in the record of rights only on the ground that the mutation entries were made without Wardi being given to the petitioner and for that purpose the learned Member referred to the non-production of the Wardi book by the Talathi. He has, however, not referred to the facts which were taken into consideration by the Special Deputy Collector viz., the examination of the respondent No. 1 by the Tahsildar when he certified the entry. That being the case, merely because the Wardi book was not produced, the learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not justified in reversing the entry in the record of rights and not relying on the Mutation Entry No. 4671 and the other record. As stated earlier, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court. The interference with the findings of fact by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not justified because it was done after re-appreciating the evidence. The order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal deserves to be set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is set aside, and that passed by the Tahsildar and affirmed by the Special Deputy collector is restored. The rule is made absolute. In view of the fact that there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents, there will be no order as to costs. -----