D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the judgment and order dated April 16, 1984 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application/no. TEN. B. A. 1075/80 allowing the revision application and quashing and seting aside the orders of the courts below to the effect that the respondents Nos. 1164 were not entitled to purchase the said land as deemed purchaser under section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act") ( 2 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to the petition may be summarised thus : in an inquiry under section 32g of the said Act, the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Kadi, by the order dated January 12,1977, in Tenancy Case No,3/76 held that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were not entitled to purchase the land bearing Survey No. 1811 admeasuring Acre 2-9 Gunthas situate in revenue limits of village Kadi. The respondents-tenants, therefore, preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 1049 of 1979 under section 74 of the said Act before the deputy Collector, Mehsana, who dismissed the said appeal, vide his order dated June 26, 1980. The respondents-tenants, being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the appeal, preferred the aforesaid revision application which came to be allowed by the tribunal, as stated above. It is this decision which is under challenge in the present petition. Mr. A. J. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that jesingbhai- Palidar who was the tenant in respect of the land in question and also the father of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, surrendered the land by his application dated July 13, 1956. Mr. Patel also invited my attention to the statement recorded of deceased jesingbhai Tribhovan to the effect that he has surrendered the possession without any coercion, fear, temptation or threat The said statement was recorded by Mamlatdar, Kadi, on June 24, 1956. Pursuant to the said application and the statement of the deceased jesingbhai, Mamlatdar, Kadi, passed the order on November 17, 1956 to terminate the tenancy of deceased Jesingbhai Tribhovandas of Kadi. The Courts below recorded concurrent findings which should not have been disturbed, according to Mr. Patel, by the tribunal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under sec. 76 of the Act. ( 3 ) ON careful consideration of the matter, I am unable to accept submission of Mr. Patel. The Courts below recorded concurrent findings which should not have been disturbed, according to Mr. Patel, by the tribunal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under sec. 76 of the Act. ( 3 ) ON careful consideration of the matter, I am unable to accept submission of Mr. Patel. The Tribunal has recorded the finding to the effect that the extract of village form no. 7-12 disclosed that Jesingbhai, deceased father of the respondent-tenants had been cultivating the land in question for the year 1953-54. It appeared to the Tribunal that the name of the deceased Jesingbhai was got removed by the mutation entry No. 2749 dated march 21,1957 by, the landlord, who was the Munim of an advocate knowing the law full well. It appears from the record that the deceased Jesingbhai, the original tenant, paid santh firstly of Rs. 50/- which came to be increased to Rs. 80/- later. The latest receipt of the said Santh of Rs. 80/- is dated February 1,1958. That goes to substantiate the case in favour of the respondent- tenants that the tenant was in possession and was cultivating the land on the tillers day i. e. on 1-4-1957. The Tribunal having perused the file of mamlatdar, concluded that deceased Jesingbhai, father of the respondent-tenants, cultivated the disputed land even in the year 1942-43 and thereafter continuously till 1956-57, which has been established from the documentary evidence on record. ( 4 ) THEN it takes me to the real question involved in the petition as to whether the surrender by deceased Jesingbhai was valid, legal and proper. Section 15 of the said Act provides that no tenant shall at any time terminate the tenancy in respect of any land by surrendering his interest therein in favour of the landlord. Sub-section (2) of sec. Section 15 of the said Act provides that no tenant shall at any time terminate the tenancy in respect of any land by surrendering his interest therein in favour of the landlord. Sub-section (2) of sec. 15 of the said Act further provides that if a tenant intends to terminate tenancy in respect of any land by surrendering his interest therein, he shall intimate in writing to the landlord and to the Collector to that effect On receipt of such intimation, the Collector shall, after giving an opportunity to the landlord, the tenant and any other person interested in the land to be heard and after holding such inquiry as he deems fit, call upon the tenant to tender to the landlord the rent in arrears with the period specified in the order and pass an order directing that the tenancy shall be terminated and that the land shall vest in the State government free from all encumbrances if, on termination of such tenancy, the State government had acquired the land from the landlord, and such land shall be liable to be disposed of in the manner provided under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 32p. In this connection, Rule 9 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 is relevant The said rule provides about verifying surrender of tenancy. Rule 9 contemplates that toe Mamlatdar when verifying the surrender of a tenancy by a tenant in favour of the landlord under section 15 shall satisfy himself, after such inquiry as he thinks fit, that the tenant understands the nature and consequences of the surrender and also that it is voluntary and shall endorse his findings in that behalf upon the instrument of surrender. Therefore, the combined reading of section 15 of the Act with Rule 9 of the rules which prescribes the manner of verifying surrender of tenancy, shows that the surrender of a tenancy by a tenant in order to be valid and effective must fulfil the following requirements :- (1) It must be in writing. (2) It must be verified before the Mamlatdar. (3) White making such verification, the Mamlatdar must satisfy himself with respect to two things, namely: (a) that the tenant understands the nature and the consequence of the surrender, and (b) that it is voluntary. (4) The Mamlatdar must endorse his findings as to such investigation upon a "document of surrender. (2) It must be verified before the Mamlatdar. (3) White making such verification, the Mamlatdar must satisfy himself with respect to two things, namely: (a) that the tenant understands the nature and the consequence of the surrender, and (b) that it is voluntary. (4) The Mamlatdar must endorse his findings as to such investigation upon a "document of surrender. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the application of the tenant dated June 13, 1956 and his statement recorded by the Mamlatdar on July 24, 1956 and consequent order of the mamltdar passed on November 17, 1956 clearly show that the Mamlatdar has not satisfied himself about an essential condition that the deceased Jesingbhai had understood the nature and consequence of the surrender. There is no application of mind on the pan of the Mamlatdar to ascertain if the surrender was voluntary. There is no endorsement by the Mamlatdar about his satisfaction upon the document of surrender. By mere mention in the application that the surrender by the tenant was without any coercion, threat, temptation, etc. would not be sufficient unless the Mamlatdar satisfies himself that the tenant understood the nature and consequence of the surrender as required by the aforesaid rule 9. In view of this legal position, the submission of Mr. Patel cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) MR. Patel next submitted that the respondent-tenants were not in possession on the tillers day, i. e. on April 1, 19s7, and therefore they cannot be held to be the deemed tenants under section 32g of the said Act The receipt of Santh paid by deceased jesingbhai shows that he continued to cultivate land till 1957. The latest receipt of said santh of Rs. 80/- is dated February 1, 1958. However, as held in the case of Patel shanabhai Vithalbhai vs. Patel Bakorbhai Vithalbhai and others, AIR 1972 Gujarat 184, actual physical possession of the land on the tillers day (April 1,19s7) is not a condition precedent for becoming a deemed purchaser. Thus, the submission of Mr. Patel requires to be rejected. In the above view of the matter, I find no substance in the petition. The petition deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Rule discharged with costs. Interim stay stands vacated. .