( 1 ) THIS is a owner's writ petition challenging the order passed by the land Tribunal, Tumkur, granting occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of Survey No. 178/2 of Honnudikere village, Gulur hobli, Tumkur Taluk. , ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the said survey number. The 2nd respondent applied for grant of occupancy rights on the ground that he has been cultivating the land as a tenant from the past several years and the land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in his favour. ( 3 ) THE contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the finding of the land Tribunal, Tumkur, that the 2nd respondent is the tenant of the land in question is based upon no material and relevant evidence. It is urged that the Land Tribunal is in error in basing its conclusion on certain letters written by the petitioner and his son to supply some produce like coconuts, plantains and plantain leaves. It is urged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the 2nd Respt. There is no evidence on record to prove either the tenancy or payment of rent. It is also urged that the 2nd Respt being a family friend and a disciple of the petitioner was looking after the garden in question whenever the petitioner was away from the village and the 2nd Respt was being asked by the petitioner to supply the articles taken from his own garden. Strong reliance is placed upon the pahani records produced in the case. The 2nd Respt's Advocate contended that the letters produced by the 2nd Respt amply prove that he was paying 'wara' (rent) and has been cultivating the land from the past several years. He urged that the pahanis do not deserve any consideration and they are not of presumptive value in the proceedings. ( 4 ) A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the Land Tribunal, tumkur, has arbitrarily decided on the basis of certain letters written by the petitioner and his son to the 2nd Respt that the 2nd Respt is the tenant of the land since 1965. The Land Tribunal has failed to refer to the pahani entries standing in the name of the petitioner and it has also not given any reasons why they should be discarded. The Land Tribunal has failed to refer to the pahani entries standing in the name of the petitioner and it has also not given any reasons why they should be discarded. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the pahani copies produced at Ext. 'b' in this writ petition stand in the name of the petitioner immediately prior to the date of vesting and subsequently. The 2nd respondent has not only failed to produce pahanis standing in his name but also has not taken any action before the competent authority to delete those entries and to get his name entered therein. Therefore, it is not possible to say that they are not genuine entries. Besides, the pahanis standing in the name of the petitioner, there are: Ext. 'h', a levy notice; Ext. 'j' delivery of and Ext. 'i' the loan taken by the petitioner on the security of the land in question, which corroborate the entries made in the record of rights and pahanis. There is no evidence worth the name produced by the 2nd Respt to rebut the presumption arising under S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and therefore, the record of rights and pahanis must be accepted and acted upon while determining the question as to who was cultivating the land immediately before the date of vesting. The implied rejection of material evidence to prove that the 2nd Respt was not cultivating the land as tenant on the relevant date calls for interference by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) MR. PUTTASWAMY, learned Advocate for the 2nd Respt placed strong reliance on the letters written by the petitioner to the 2nd Respt. The sum and substance of these letters is that the 2nd Respt on the request of the petitioner had supplied periodically plantains, plantain-leaves and coconuts. They were sent by the 2nd respondent on occasions like marriage and obsequies. Mr. Puttaswamy, placed very strong reliance on Ext. 4' to show that the 2nd Respt had grown 'ragi' in the land of the petitioner and that a reference is made in Ext. 4' marked before the Land Tribunal, asking the 2nd Respt to keep his share of ragi produce and send his share to him. Mr. Puttaswamy, placed very strong reliance on Ext. 4' to show that the 2nd Respt had grown 'ragi' in the land of the petitioner and that a reference is made in Ext. 4' marked before the Land Tribunal, asking the 2nd Respt to keep his share of ragi produce and send his share to him. The explanation given by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioners and the 2nd Respt jointly purchased ragi for their consumption and therefore, the petitioner asked the 2nd Respt to keep his portion and send the share that belonged to him. This explanation appears to be plausible because the pahani entries disclose that on no portion of the land which is a garden land ragi being grown at any time. But, Mr. Puttaswamy, placed reliance on the admission made by the petitioner in the course of his statement before the Tribunal that a portion of the land in question consisted of a dry land. But the pahani entries disclose that on the land in question only garden crops were being grown and no dry crop had been raised at any time. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner and the 2nd Respt share ragi produce from the land cannot hold water. Again reliance is placed on Ext. 13', marked before the Tribunal, which contained a direction to the 2nd Respt not to thrash the paddy crop until the petitioner returned to the village. This direction is consistent with the ownership and possession of the petitioner and does not give rise to an inference that the 2nd Respt was directed to. do so as a tenant. Further, reliance is placed upon certain other letters which directed the 2nd Respt to fence the garden and to keepproper watch over the garden. These letters also do not support the contention on behalf of the 2nd Respt that he is the tenant of the land. Human nature being what it is, that no owner of a land given on lease would be interested in giving such directions since it would be the responsibility of the tenant to take care of the garden. Even these letters are not consistent with the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the 2nd Respt. Further, no owner of a garden would lease it for mere supply of few coconuts, plantains and some plantain-leaves. Even these letters are not consistent with the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the 2nd Respt. Further, no owner of a garden would lease it for mere supply of few coconuts, plantains and some plantain-leaves. There is no written lease deed at all. The letters which are the sole basis for the Tribunal to record a finding of tenancy, cannot be accepted as good evidence to support the finding. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the 2nd Respt's alleged lease came into being after the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, came into force on and after 2-10-196. This is clear from the fact that the 2nd Respt in his application in Form no. 7 stated that he was tenant of the land for the last ten years. But in the course of his statement he has stated that he was a tenant for the past twenty years. There is thus inconsistency about the period during which the 2nd Respt has been a tenant on the land. If the 2nd Respt was a tenant for over twenty years, it is surprising why his name is not entered in the pahanis in any one of the years. As already stated the 2nd Respt has also not raised his little finger to get his name entered in the pahanis. Therefore, the Land Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was not the tenant of the land is based upon no evidence. The Tribunal should bear in mind that it is dangerous to snatch somebody's land and gift it away to some one else on flimsy pieces of evidence. It reminds me of the adage "rob Peter and pay Paul". It may be added that the petitioner is not a big landlord owning tens of acres. His position is as good or as bad as that of the 2nd Respt, in so far as their economic conditions are concerned. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, Tumkur, cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. In the result, writ petition is allowed. No costs. --- *** --- .