JUDGMENT The Tribunal allowed the tenants' revision on the following grounds :- (1) The land in question belonged to the two brothers jointly. The applications for ejectment were filed only by Trimbak Bhikaji. The other brother had not made the applications for terminating the tenancy either separately or by joining his brother. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applications by Trimbak Bhikaji alone were not competent and on this ground the Tribunal rejected the applications. (2) The Tribunal after examining the pleadings and the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the Courts below should have inquired into the genuineness of the lease deed. The Tribunal reached the finding "it was, therefore, necessary to find out as to whether the lease deed dated 30.4.51 was genuine or forged document". A bare reading of the Tribunal's order shows that the Tribunal granted relief to the appellant-tenant on the above two grounds. We are of the view that the High Court was justified in setting aside the Tribunal's finding on the first point mentioned above. The High Court found that Trimbak Bhikaji being the Karta of the family could file the applications for termination of the tenancy without associating his brother. We see no infirmity in the said finding of the High Court. The High Court was also right in rejecting the contention of the tenant that the proceedings under the Bombay Act were illegal as the requirement of prior notice under the said Act was not complied with. We are, however, of the view that the High Court erred in holding that the lease deed dated April 30, 1951 was a genuine document. No enquiry was held at any stage regarding the genuineness of the lease deed. The Sub-Divisional Officer refused to go into the question on the ground that there were no pleadings on the point. The Sub- Divisional Officer was obviously wrong because the lease deed was filed by the respondent-landowner after the pleadings were completed. The Appellate Court was wholly unjustified in observing that the appellant -tenants" had admitted the execution of the lease deed. The appellants' case throughout had been that the lease deed was a forged document. The Tribunal could not remand the case for enquiry into the genuineness of the lease deed because it had allowed the revisions on two grounds. The Appellate Court was wholly unjustified in observing that the appellant -tenants" had admitted the execution of the lease deed. The appellants' case throughout had been that the lease deed was a forged document. The Tribunal could not remand the case for enquiry into the genuineness of the lease deed because it had allowed the revisions on two grounds. The High Court, having reversed the finding of the Tribunal on the first point, should have remanded the case to the Trial Court for determining the genuineness of the lease deed dated April 30, 1951 specially when the case of the respondent-land-owner was wholly based on the said document. The High Court had no material before it to come to the conclusion that the lease deed was a genuine document. We, therefore, set aside the High Court judgment and also of the Courts below and remand the case to the concerned trial Court for deciding the ejectment applications filed by the respondent-land owner afresh after affording opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. The trial Court shall afford full opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the issue of the genuineness or otherwise of the lease deed dated April 30, 1951. Appeal allowed.