(1) THE appellant was writ petitioner before the Bombay High court in Writ Petition No. 2611 of 1976 whereby he challenged the decision of the Revenue tribunal which rejected his contention that certain portions of the land declared by the owner under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (the "ceiling Act") were in his possession as a deemed tenant and were, therefore, not liable to be included in the declaration of the owner. The appellant has produce Annx. P-l dated 9/08/1971, which is an order made by the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal purportedly under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (the "tenancy Act" ). It says that the present appellant was not in unauthorised occupation of the land in question and was, therefore, not liable to be evicted under Section 120 of the said Act. ( 2 ) THE High court by the impugned judgment found that the appellant had not produced any evidence showing that the land in question was in his possession or that he was a deemed tenant. The High court further held that before the Revenue tribunal constituted under the Ceiling Act the appellant had not produced any evidence in support of his title or possession respecting the land in question. ( 3 ) IT is not clear to us either from the records of the arguments to the bar whether or not Ex. P-l had been brought to the notice of thetribunal constituted under the Ceiling Act. It is also not clear whether Annx. P-l was considered by either the tribunal or the High court, assuming that that order was relied on by the appellant, for final determination of the question under the Ceiling Act. This is an important aspect which has to be considered. It does not appear from the impugned judgment that sufficient reliance has been placed by the appellant on Annx. P-l in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. ( 4 ) WE are of the view that the question has to be considered afresh in the light of whatever evidence that is available on the appellants claim of possession and interest Ex. P-l in which, we are told, an issue as to the appellants right under S. 6 of the Tenancy Act had been raised at the instance of the High court in an earlier proceeding may be of some significance. P-l in which, we are told, an issue as to the appellants right under S. 6 of the Tenancy Act had been raised at the instance of the High court in an earlier proceeding may be of some significance. ( 5 ) WE are of the view that it would be fair and just if the appellant is given further opportunity to adduce fresh evidence in support of his contentions. It is open to the High court to consider the question by itself or remand the matter for consideration by the appropriate tribunal. ( 6 ) IN the light of what we have stated above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High court and remand the case to that court for fresh consideration. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. ( 7 ) THE order made by this court on 6/04/1984 staying the appellants dispossession shall remain in force for two months.