CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's revision petition under section 121a of the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He filed Form No. 7 before the land Tribunal, Gubbi under Section 48a of the Act claiming occupancy rights in respect of 9 guntas of land in S. No. 47/4 in mavinahalli Amanikere village Chandrashekhara pura of Gubbi Taluk. By a peremptory order without any discussion, the Land tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the applicant's mother's name appears in the pahani column, that there has been purchase and sale of the land in question and pahani also speaks of such cultivation. Therefore, by a majority decision, the land Tribunal rejected the application. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner presented a writ petition in this Court which came to be transferred to the Appellate authority constituted under the Act after the amendment made to the Act, providing for an appeal against the order of the Land reforms Tribunal. ( 2 ) IT is apparent from the order of the appellate Authority that the appellant- tenant had failed to discharge the onus cast on him by law to establish that he was a tenant. They have adverted to a number of inconsistencies between the statements made by him and the entries in the record of rights and tenancy and crop register. He claimed that they were cultivating the land from the time of his father for over 45 years as tenants. He also stated that he had paid the rent to one Shivagangaiah. From the pahanies it was noticed that for the years 1963 64 one Puttaiah alias Muddaiah cultivated the land in question. In 1965-66 in the column provided for cultivators neither lingamma mother of the petitioner-tenant nor the petitioner's name was found. For the first time in 1966-67 Lingamma wife of mariguddaiah was over wrkten on the name of Shivagangaiah. Therefore, the Appellate authority concluded that even as far back as in 1966-97 it was not cultivated by Lingamma and that could not be accepted as proof. They held that in view of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, without notice, entries could not be altered in the record of rights. ( 3 ) THEY have given further reasons to disbelieve the entries made in the subsequent years. They held that in view of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, without notice, entries could not be altered in the record of rights. ( 3 ) THEY have given further reasons to disbelieve the entries made in the subsequent years. Mainly the reasons are on account of the inconsistencies in the statement of facts in Form No. 7 and the oral evidence given by the tenant- petitioner before the Appellate authority. If on facts, the Appellate authority came to conclude that he was not a tenant, this Court can hardly interfere with that under Section 121a of the Act as a revisional Court. ( 4 ) IN this Court, Mr. W. K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that oral evidence cannot rebut the presumptive value of the record of rights in terms of Section 133 of the Land Revenue act. He relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Srikantegowda v Land reforms Tribunal, THrthahalli [1977 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 126] in support of that proposition. Undoubtedly, in that case, the learned, then Chief Justice of this Court'held that where the Land Tribunal ignored the statutory presumption and recorded a finding that the applicant, though his name was not entered in the record of rights, was a tenant, such a decision was vitiated. It further observed that the Land Tribunal had to closely examine circumstantial evidence and find out whether the statutory presumption was rebutted and mere statement that a number of witnesses had been examined on one side or the other, would not justify ignoring the statutory presumption. It is difficult to disagree with the observations made. But while oral evidence in itself may or may not be sufficient to rebut the presumption in every case, the fact remains in the case on hand neither the Tribunal nor the Appellate authority has ignored the presumption underlying the entries. They have chosen not to rely upon the entries because of the inherent inconsistencies in the record of rights extract itself as well as the statements of the tenant- petitioner given before the Appellate authority. ( 5 ) IT is well established now, by a catena of decisions, that the burden of proving that as on 1-3-1974 a person was lawfully cultivating the land as a tenant is on the tenant - applicant and he alone must discharge that burden. ( 5 ) IT is well established now, by a catena of decisions, that the burden of proving that as on 1-3-1974 a person was lawfully cultivating the land as a tenant is on the tenant - applicant and he alone must discharge that burden. Mere presumption arising out of entries in pahani or RTC extracts cannot be held to be conclusive evidence of the tenancy. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, Lingamma was the tenant. From all accounts it appears from the reading of the Appellate Authority's order that she was alive when the application in form no. 7 was made. But she was not the applicant. If Lingamma was the tenant in 1971-72 and 1972-73 as per the pahani entries, no cogent reason has come forward from the petitioner as to how his name came to be entered in her place and continued thereafter. No explanation also has been offered as to why Lingamma has not made the application in form No. 7. If the circumstances did give room for suspicion as to the correctness of the entries in the pahani and the manner in which the change had taken place, the Appellate Authority was correct in coming to the conclusion that no presumption could be raised on the basis of the pahani produced before it. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the dismissal of the appeal by it does not call for interference by this court's in its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is rejected. --- *** --- .