JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---The petitioner is owner and landlord of Survey No. 15-B admeasuring 6 acres and 33 gunthas situated at village Pangara, Taluka Basmatnagar, District Parbhani, The petitioner filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmatnagar for possession of the suit land. The respondent raised a dispute of tenancy in his written statement and, therefore, a reference was made under section 99-A read with section 8 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by the Civil Court to the Revenue Authority to decide as to whether the respondent was tenant of the disputed land. The petitioner contended in the suit that on July 19, 1955 the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 3,000/- with the petitioner as sale price for purchasing the land Survey No. 14 of one Narayan. The said transaction did not materialise and, therefore, the respondent asked back the said amount from the petitioner. The petitioner was unable to pay the said amount and, therefore, under a document dated August 15, 1955 the suit land was given in possession of the respondent on a Munafa basis of Rs. 300/- per year. The said document was only for a period of one year but on the same terms and conditions the possession of the respondent continued for some years. It was agreed between the parties that the respondents possession shall continue until the re-payment of amount of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. Respondent also filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 1961 claiming an amount of Rs. 2,000/- with interest which he alleged to have paid to the petitioner in July, 1955. The said suit came to be dismissed on April 28, 1962. An appeal was preferred against the said dismissal, which was partly allowed on February 4, 1963 to the extent of Rs. 1475/-. Both the parties came in second appal in this High Court and the said second appeal of the petitioner was allowed and that of the respondent dismissed on October 8, 1970. According to the petitioner the possession of the suit land was restored in the year 1962 and a mutation Entry No. 184 came to be made in the Revenue Records and in the column of cultivation the name of the petitioner was shown for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. According to the petitioner the possession of the suit land was restored in the year 1962 and a mutation Entry No. 184 came to be made in the Revenue Records and in the column of cultivation the name of the petitioner was shown for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. The respondent filed proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer bearing file No. Cri.P.C. 144/145/64. In the said proceedings a preliminary order was passed on June 5, 1964 and in the result the application was granted and the order of restoration of possession of disputed land was passed in favour of the respondent and respondent was restored possession on July 10, 1967. The petitioner thereafter filed the present suit on July 28, 1967. Curious part of the litigation is that the respondent claims to be a tenant on the basis of agreement of Batai that means share in the crop. The respondent also denied that he was in possession on the basis of that agreement. At one stage the respondent denies the execution of the document and at the another stage he files a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,000/- on the basis of the said document and that litigation came upto the High Court. It is an admitted position that respondent had not paid any rent whatsoever right from 1955 to this day except the alleged payment of Rs. 2,000/-. 3. On June 17, 1978 I directed the tenant to deposit the entire rent with effect from 1962 to 1978 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per year. Thereafter two adjournments were granted to deposit the rent and today the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that the respondent is not in a position to pay the rent or arrears of rent. Therefore, today the matter is placed before this Court for final disposal of the Special Civil Application. 4. As stated above on a reference made by the Civil Court, the learned Additional Tahsildar recorded the evidence of the parties and having heard the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent is not a tenant of the disputed land by his judgment and order dated June 30, 1962. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Additional Tahsildar filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Additional Tahsildar filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector. The learned Deputy Collector of Hingoli by his judgment and order dated February 15, 1973 was pleased to dismiss the appeal confirming the finding recorded by the Additional Tahsildar. The respondent thereafter filed a revision application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the same was allowed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by his judgment and order dated December 14, 1973, holding that the petitioner will be deemed tenant of the suit land under the provisions of section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It is rightly submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of facts on the appreciation of evidence recorded by both the courts below namely, the learned Additional Tahsildar and the Deputy Collector of Hingoli that the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed land and it is an error to hold that the provisions of section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act would apply to the facts of the present case. There is nothing on record to show that any rent was paid by the petitioner. There is no documentary evidence on record to show that the relationship of landlord and tenant was created. The respondents conduct in the entire proceeding was thoroughly dishonest. In the present case, he denied the execution of the document dated August 15, 1955 on the basis of which he is alleged to have been put in possession. He denies the same and if he denies the said document then his possession cannot be referred to the said document produced in the Court. In that event it cannot be said that the respondent was put in possession by the petitioner in pursuance of that document. His possession will be deemed to be unlawful and if the said possession is not lawful, possession, the provisions of section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act would not apply and he cannot be said to be a deemed tenant. His possession will be deemed to be unlawful and if the said possession is not lawful, possession, the provisions of section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act would not apply and he cannot be said to be a deemed tenant. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal committed an error in construing the provisions of section 5, and further the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of facts and record the finding that the respondent would be a deemed tenant of the disputed land. In view of the said circumstances on record and the observations made hereinabove the order passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on September 8, 1976 is set aside and also an order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on the Review Petition Dated March 28, 1977 is also set aside and that of the learned Deputy Collector, Hingoli and the learned Additional Tahsildar is confirmed. The finding that the petitioner is not a tenant be communicated to the Civil Court immediately. 5. The writ of this Court may be sent immediately to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmatnagar. On the receipt of the said writ the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmatnagar will keep the matter on top priority and dispose of the same in accordance with law at the earliest by September 30, 1978. 6. Rule is made absolute with costs. -----