(1) NEITHER the appellant nor his counsel is present. However, we are not dismissing these appeals tor default. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents at some length. We examined the records available and the orders passed by the various authorities and the High court. The brief facts are as follows: (2) THE respondents before us who claimed to be a tenant tiled an application before the Mamlatdar for a declaration about his tenancy under S. 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Mamlatdar dismissed the application holding that the respondents were not a tenant, in the absence of any rent receipt or other acceptable documentary evidence. The respondents took the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector took the same view and dismissed the appeal. (3) THE respondent-tenant moved the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal. The tribunal went into the question in detail and examined all the documentary evidence produced. The tribunal found that in an application made by the appellant for recovery of possession of the property for his bona fide personal cultivation, there was an admission by him about the possession of the respondent as well as his tenancy. The tribunal also took note of two notices issued by the landlord-appellant to the respondent again containing an admission of the respondents tenancy. The tribunal had before it an agreement of sale by the appellant to the respondent of an adjoining property, in the body of which, reference is made about the property in question and also of the respondents possession thereof. Taking into consideration, these various documents, the tribunal set aside the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Mamlatdar and granted a declaration in favour of the respondent as originally prayed for. (4) THE appellant challenged this order before the High court. Apart from attacking the order on various grounds, it was contended that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to set aside the question of fact entered by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector. This contention was repelled by the High court observing that the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector had ignored the presumptions which must be drawn in law from the various documents before them. After a detailed discussion of the materials available, the High court confirmed the order of the tribunal. This contention was repelled by the High court observing that the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector had ignored the presumptions which must be drawn in law from the various documents before them. After a detailed discussion of the materials available, the High court confirmed the order of the tribunal. (5) ON a consideration of the various matters placed before us and the submissions made by the respondents counsel, we are not satisfied that any interference with the judgment under appeal is called for. Hence the appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.