Judgment :- 1. The landowner is the revision petitioner. 2. The application of the first respondent under S.72B for purchase of the right, title and interest of the land owner in respect of the holding in question was allowed by the tribunal. On appeal the Appellate Authority confirmed the said order by the judgment under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority in not taking into account the significance of the originals of the documents, copies of which be had produced before the tribunal, has committed an error of law warranting interference with the judgment under challenge. It is not in dispute nor for that matter it is disputed that the photostat copies of the said documents had been produced before the tribunal by the petitioner in support of his case. The tribunal as is seen from the order, however was not prepared to accept the photostat copies of the said documents in evidence. The findings of the tribunal in this regard read: "The contention of the respondent that the property was entrusted to the father of the occupant as a caretaker was not proved by producing original documents. No witnesses examined except the Revenue Inspector. The Photostat copies of documents cannot be relied on since the originals have not been produced and marked at the evidence stage". It is not the case of the petitioner that he had produced the originals of the said documents before the matter was finally heard by the Tribunal. Not only that the petitioner had not cross-examined the independent witnesses Pws. 2 and 3. The Tribunal has observed that no steps either to cross-examine the said witnesses or to produce the originals of the photostat copies of the documents be had produced in the proceedings have been taken by the petitioner "despite ample time was given in that regard". The observation of the Tribunal in this regard reads: "The witnesses pw 2, and pw 3 also depose the pattom arrangements. These depositions are unchallenged. The respondent was given ample time to adduce evidence. Even then the respondent did not care to cross-examine the witness Pw. 3 and also to adduce evidence on their side". (Emphasis supplied) 4. After evaluating the evidence available on record the Tribunal entered the following findings: "The possession, occupation and enjoyment of the applicant (first respondent herein) is admitted. Absolutely no evidence against it. Even then the respondent did not care to cross-examine the witness Pw. 3 and also to adduce evidence on their side". (Emphasis supplied) 4. After evaluating the evidence available on record the Tribunal entered the following findings: "The possession, occupation and enjoyment of the applicant (first respondent herein) is admitted. Absolutely no evidence against it. Hence relying on the unchallenged oral testimonies of the occupant and two witnesses in addition to the S. M. report and Revenue Inspector's Report, I find that the occupant is a cultivating tenant". 5. The Appellate Authority before which the above order was under challenge, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner however, did not consider the grounds urged by him, challenging the observations of the Tribunal extracted above, in the right perspective. The learned counsel argues that the petitioner had specifically challenged the above observations of the Tribunal and therefore the Appellate Authority ought to have allowed his request for a remand of the case for a denovo consideration. The grounds urged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority in this regard reads: "The Tribunal ought not to have rejected the attested photostat copies of the correspondence between Mr. T. M. John and Mr. Joseph Linus and the appellant on the ground that the originals had not been produced. The respondent had no case that the letters were not genuine. In fact, she had also identified the handwriting in the letters produced by the appellant before the Tribunal. These letters clearly indicate that Mr John was only a care-taker of the property and there never existed tenant-landlord relationship between Mr. John and Mr. Joseph Linus". This ground may suggest that the petitioner in fact wanted the Appellate Authority to have the matter considered afresh in the light of the originals of the photostat copies, he had filed before it. The suggestion by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Appellate Authority in any event, ought to have remitted the case to the Tribunal for a denovo consideration taking into account the documents be had produced before the Appellate Authority. This argument at the first blush is really attractive but considered in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme court reported in M. S. Jagadambal v. Southern Indian Education Trust (AIR. 1988 SC. 103), I am afraid the above argument is not sustainable. This argument at the first blush is really attractive but considered in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme court reported in M. S. Jagadambal v. Southern Indian Education Trust (AIR. 1988 SC. 103), I am afraid the above argument is not sustainable. This is what the Supreme Court has said: "We are not persuaded by the alternative contention urged by learned counsel for the respondents. The trial court did not frame an issue as to the defendants perfecting title the suit property by adverse possession. The defendants did not produce any evidence in support of the plea of adverse possession. It is not the case of the defendants that they were misled in their approach to the case. It is also not their case that they were denied opportunity to put forward their evidence. It is therefore, not proper for us at this stage to remand the case to enable the defendants to make good their lapse." (Emphasis supplied) 6. As already stated it is not as if the petitioner had no opportunity to produce the evidence before the Tribunal. In fact, as observed by the Tribunal, the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to produce the evidence in support of his case. But he did not avail of the opportunity and if that be the position, it is not proper either for the Appellate Authority or for this court in revision, to remand the case to enable the petitioner to make good his lapse. The evidence that is now available on record does not support the case, the petitioner had placed before the Tribunal. The petitioner has not even cross-examined the independent witnesses, who bad clearly stated that the first respondent has been, the cultivating tenant of the holding for more than two decades. The said findings stand uncontroverted because the petitioner has not chosen to cross-examine (he said witnesses. The said evidence corroborates the evidence the petitioner had let in in support of of bis case that be is the cultivating tenant of the holding. 7. The authorities below therefore have rightly held that the first respondent is a cultivating tenant of the holding and hence entitled to the benefit of S.72B. The CRP. is without merits. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.