CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's revision under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (the 'act' for short ). He is aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Appellate authority constituted for Dakshina kannada, dated 6th October 1987, passed in no. LRA. TT. 3742/86. The revision petitioner made an application in Form No. VII and in proceedings under Section 48-A of the Act, the occupancy rights were granted to him in respect of S. Nos. 19/8,19/7, 20/3, 20/4 and 28/7 of Bajpe village. Aggrieved by that order, his opponent preferred writ petition in this court which came to be transferred to the appellate Authority, consequent upon the amendment made to the Karnataka Land reforms Act in 1986. ( 2 ) BEFORE the Appellate Authority, additional evidence was recorded. On appreciating the evidence on record, the appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-tenant had failed to establish that he was cultivating the lands in question on the relevant date as tenant, i. e. , on 1. 3. 1974. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal and rejected the application of the revision petitioner-tenant. ( 3 ) SRI Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for U. L. Narayana Rao, has taken the Court through the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Land Tribunal in detail. He has strenuously contended that any presumption that arose in favour of the landlord on account of the entries in the record of rights extract stood rebutted by the documentary evidence produced by the tenant. The documentary evidence produced by the tenant were the loan applica tions made to the Co-operative Society for sanction of loan for the cultivation of paddy as well as. the receipts issued by the agricultural Co-operative Bank for surrender of levy paddy. The Appellate authority did not attach much importance to the documentary evidence produced by the tenant for two reasons. The first reason was that his application made to the society did not disclose in respect of which land, the loan had been asked for, though specific column was provided for the applicant to disclose such detail. Levy receipts also did not disclose in respect of which land the levy had been collected or surrendered. The first reason was that his application made to the society did not disclose in respect of which land, the loan had been asked for, though specific column was provided for the applicant to disclose such detail. Levy receipts also did not disclose in respect of which land the levy had been collected or surrendered. ( 4 ) IN any event, the Appellate Authority found that those documents related to the years 1965 to 1968 and not to the relevant year namely 1. 3. 1974. Thus, taking the totality of the Circumstances and weighing the evidence adduced for the landlord as well as the tenant, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the tenant had failed to establish that he was a tenant lawfully cultivating the lands in question as on 1. 3. 1974 which is a pre-requisite to claim occupancy rights under the Act. ( 5 ) I have noticed an error, as was contended, in the order of the Land tribunal. There is no discussion of evidence which was placed before the Tribunal, that is, the evidence of the landlord himself and another witness in support of the landlord's version that he was personally cultivating the lands in question in the relevant years. The land Tribunal made spot inspection on a particular day in the year 1985 and on the basis of the spot inspection, they decided that the tenant must be cultivating the lands. No reason whatsoever is given by the Land tribunal as to why and how they reached such a conclusion and on what basis that conclusion was arrived at. ( 6 ) IN that circumstance, the Appellate authority which not only had the advantage of going through the records of the Land tribunal, but also having considered the evidence adduced before it, has reached the conclusion and recorded a finding of fact with which this Court cannot interfere and ought not to interfere in its revisional landlord -jurisdiction acting as a further Court of appeal. Such re-examination of evidence in rare cases may be done where injustice has resulted. When there is no injustice or improper application of mis-direction, this court will not re-examine the evidence as consistently held by this Court in more than one judgment. For the above reasons, this revision petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .