JUDGMENT- R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---The present petition has a chequered history as would be seen from the facts of the case. The matter relates to field Survey Nos. 113/A and 114/B with an area of 10 acres 26 gunthas and 13 acres and 14 gunthas respectively situated at village Shelgaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. The present petitioners before this Court are the purchasers from respondent No. 2-Hanumantrao, who happened to be the original owner of the fields in question. The respondent No. 2-Hanumantrao by three registered sale-deeds, transferred the fields in question to the present petitioners. These three sale-deeds are dated 18-6-1966; 23-2-1966 and 31-3-1967. During the pendency of the present litigation, as is clear from the record, the legal representatives of the petitioner No. 1 Shivraya Kallappa; petitioner No. 3-Pochgouda Baligouda, as also the legal representatives of petitioner No. 4-Hanmanta Piraji, are brought on record, who are all hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners", for the purposes of clarity and convenience. 2.The respondent No. 1 in the present petition i.e. Baswantrao Rachappa, who is also now dead and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondent Nos. 1-A to 1-E, claimed himself to be a tenant on the fields in question, and being aggrieved by the transfer of the fields in question in favour of the petitioners, initiated proceedings by filing an application under section 48 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (sic) 1948 (which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purposes of brevity). This application/objection was raised by the respondent No. 1 on 3rd of July, 1967, specifically alleging that the respondent No. 2-the owner Hanumanta could not have transferred the fields in question in favour of the petitioners by sale as, according to him, he was a tenant on the fields in question, the transaction was hit by the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It was the specific case before the Tahsildar of the respondent No. 1 that the sale-deeds executed in favour of petitioners by the original land owner, should be declared as invalid and that since the respondent No. 1 himself since was ready to purchase the fields in question, being the tenant thereon, the same should be declared so in his favour. The abovesaid application was contested by the present petitioners by filing their say, whereby they denied the tenancy and possession of the respondent No. 1 on the disputed lands. An important fact which needs reference at this stage is that the original land owner-Hanumantrao, though served with the notice, remained absent all through these proceedings and even did not file his say or written statement in any manner. Though prima facie, his absence just appeared as a normal one, the said absence definitely have a great role to play in the present litigation. 3.The application which was filed by Baswantrao under section 48 of the Act was registered as Application No. 67/TNA/16 on the file of Tahsildar, Degloor. The learned Tahsildar after having recorded the evidence in the matter and after due appreciation thereof, reached to the conclusion that Baswantrao, the respondent No. 1 failed to prove that he was a tenant on the fields in question and he, therefore, reached to the finding that the application under section 48 filed by respondent No. 1 did call for no consideration. A specific finding is arrived at by the learned Tahsildar, Degloor that Baswantrao was not a tenant. This order is passed by the learned Tahsildar on 31st March, 1970. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Tahsildar, Baswantrao, the present respondent No. 1 did approach by way of an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nanded. This appeal was registered as Appeal No. 70/TNA/TNC-400 and the learned Deputy Collector with appellate powers, who dealt with the matter by his order dated 30th August, 1971 rejected the appeal filed by Baswantrao, the present respondent No. 1, naturally thereby, maintaining the order passed by the Tahsildar. Against this decision dated 30-8-1971 of the Deputy Collector, a Revision was preferred before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad vide Revision No. 259/D-/71 and the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, who dealt with the matter, by his judgment and order dated 12-1-1973 partly allowed the matter and remanded the case to the Tahsildar for fresh appreciation of evidence on record. On remand, the learned Tahsildar, Degloor by his order dated 25-2-1974, again, rejected the application filed by the respondent No. 1-tenant, holding that he was not a tenant on the fields in question. Naturally, the respondent No. 1 was, again required to approach the Deputy Collector by way of an appeal bearing No. 1974/TNC/APPN/48/66. On remand, the learned Tahsildar, Degloor by his order dated 25-2-1974, again, rejected the application filed by the respondent No. 1-tenant, holding that he was not a tenant on the fields in question. Naturally, the respondent No. 1 was, again required to approach the Deputy Collector by way of an appeal bearing No. 1974/TNC/APPN/48/66. The learned Deputy Collector, Degloor, who dealt with the matter by his order dated 25th October, 1975, after giving due reasoning, reached to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned Tahsildar was not correct and, according to him, there was sufficient material on record to come to the conclusion that the present respondent No. 1-Baswantrao was a tenant on the fields in question and he did properly prove the same. 4.Since the respondent No. 1-Baswantrao was held to be a tenant on the fields in question, naturally it was the turn of the landlord-purchaser to approach the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by way of a Revision Application which was registered as Revision Application No: 353/B/75. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, again, after having gone through the record properly and carefully, by his order dated 25th March, 1977, again, remanded the matter to the lower appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Collector, Nanded on the ground that the Deputy Collector should reconsider the oral evidence which was led in the matter and which, according to the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not appreciated or considered by the Deputy Collector earlier. 5.On remand, the matter was, again, taken up by the lower appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Collector, Nanded and the learned Deputy Collector, Nanded strictly in pursuance of the direction given by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and after appreciating the evidence and reassessing the same, again, reached to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1-Baswantrao happened to be a tenant on the fields in question and that the finding which was given by the learned Tahsildar could not be maintained. This order is passed by the learned Deputy Collector on 22-2-1979 which is at Exh. 'B' on the paperbook of this petition. The present petitioners being dissatisfied with the decision given by the Deputy Collector even after remand, naturally approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, again, by way of a Revision, which was registered as Revision Application No. 65/B/1979. This order is passed by the learned Deputy Collector on 22-2-1979 which is at Exh. 'B' on the paperbook of this petition. The present petitioners being dissatisfied with the decision given by the Deputy Collector even after remand, naturally approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, again, by way of a Revision, which was registered as Revision Application No. 65/B/1979. It was the case of the present petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that inspite of specific direction while remanding the matter to appreciate and re-appreciate the oral evidence which was led by the parties, the Deputy Collector did not follow the directions properly and reached to the erroneous conclusion, holding that the respondent No. 1 happened to be a tenant on the fields in question. It was also the contention before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, while challenging the order of the Deputy Collector, that the learned Deputy Collector did not take into consideration the specific statements made on behalf of the petitioners by their witnesses and that because of non-appreciation of evidence properly, the findings arrived at by the learned Deputy Collector were totally perverse and liable to be set aside. 6.The learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, who dealt with the Revision Application No. 65/B/79 did appreciate the arguments made before him by the parties concerned and after due reasoning, maintained the order passed by the Deputy Collector whereby the Deputy Collector had held that the respondent No. 1-Baswantrao was a tenant on the fields in question. It is this order which is challenged before this Court by way of present writ petition. 7.Before this Court, Shri M.K. Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assailed the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on the ground that it was not open for the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to reappreciate the evidence and in doing so, the learned Member did definitely acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in him. The learned Counsel, further, assailed the order contending that since the earlier objection petition by the respondent No. 1 under section 47 was already rejected, it was not open for the Revenue Authorities below to entertain an application under section 48 which, according to the petitioner, was not maintainable. The learned Counsel, further, assailed the order contending that since the earlier objection petition by the respondent No. 1 under section 47 was already rejected, it was not open for the Revenue Authorities below to entertain an application under section 48 which, according to the petitioner, was not maintainable. Shri M.K. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, further, argued that the plea of tenancy which was raised by the respondent No. 1 was very vague and further that the tenancy could not be proved. He further contended that an application under section 32(1) of the Act for possession was filed by the respondent No. 1 which also came to be dismissed in default and hence, now, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim the tenancy and maintain the application under section 48 of the Act. Shri Deshpande faintly also argued that the inquiry under section 8 of the Act was not properly made and provisions of that section are not complied with. Shri Deshpande, further, vehemently argued on the point that there was no complete appreciation of evidence even by the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. He, therefore, sought for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on the grounds raised above. 8.In support of his contentions, Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners took me through the record of the case and pointed out that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal while remanding the matter for the first time, by its order dated 25-3-1977, had specifically given directions to the Revenue authority below to reassess the evidence including oral evidence and, then, to give the findings thereon. Shri Deshpande contended that the Deputy Collector did fail to act in accordance with the directions and he, therefore, again wanted to get the matter remanded first by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and now by this Court. I have gone through the order passed by the Deputy Collector after remand for the second time by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and I find that the learned Deputy Collector did appreciate the evidence on record and that is very clear from the judgment of the Deputy Collector. I have gone through the order passed by the Deputy Collector after remand for the second time by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and I find that the learned Deputy Collector did appreciate the evidence on record and that is very clear from the judgment of the Deputy Collector. In the Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against that order, same set of contentions was raised by the petitioners and the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, has observed that if the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence then the revisional Court could either send the matter back or could have appreciated the evidence itself. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal adopted the second method and reappreciated the evidence. Even though the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reappreciated the evidence, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued before me that the Revenue Tribunal also did not properly appreciated the evidence and, according to him, actually there was no appreciation at all. Since this was the main contention of the petitioners before this Court, I have thoroughly gone through the judgment of the Revenue Tribunal and I find that there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this respect. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in his judgment on page 34 of the paperbook of this petition, has specifically observed that the learned appellate authority did refer to the documentary evidence as well as the statement of the plaintiff, though complete appreciation and discussion of the entire evidence is not made. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Deshpande tried to pick and choose the sentences and wanted to suggest that it is the observation by the learned Member of the Tribunal himself that complete appreciation and discussion of the entire evidence is not made thereby he wanted to suggest that there was no appreciation of evidence on the part of the learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal. I am unable to accept this argument of the learned Counsel Shri Deshpande for the petitioners, particularly when the order which is passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal is tried to be read in piecemeal. I am unable to accept this argument of the learned Counsel Shri Deshpande for the petitioners, particularly when the order which is passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal is tried to be read in piecemeal. If the judgment of the Revenue Tribunal is read as a whole, the cumulative effect of the various observations made in the judgment, do suggest that the learned Member, in fact, did observe that the Deputy Collector had appreciated the evidence; however he did not in so many words referred to the same in his judgment . The learned Member of the Tribunal, as can be seen from the said judgment, has specifically observed that the findings which are arrived at by the learned appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Collector, could not be said to be perverse in any manner as, according to the learned Member of the Tribunal, those findings were based on the evidence which was produced before the authority concerned. 9.The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Shri Murar Deshpande, argued that there was no force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and further that according to Shri Murar Deshpande, the revenue authorities below did properly appreciate the evidence led before them and after due application of mind they dissected the evidence and reached to the proper conclusion. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, therefore, suggested that the present case in no way did call for any interference at the hands of this Court, much the less under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri Murar Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 pointed out specifically that it was the case of Baswantrao i.e. respondent No. 1 that he was a tenant on the fields in question right from the year 1959-60. He has further specifically pointed out the 7/12 extracts which were produced for the period between 1959-60 and 1968-69; Out of that for the period from 1959-60 to 1960-61, the cultivation by the respondent No. 1 is specifically indicated. Thereafter, for the period from 1962-63 to 1964-65, the field is shown to have been cultivated by the owner and thereafter for the period from 1965-66 to 1966-67, again, the cultivation is shown by Baswantrao, the respondent No. 1. Needless to mention here that the said transaction was immediately thereafter between the respondent No. 2 and the plaintiff. Thereafter, for the period from 1962-63 to 1964-65, the field is shown to have been cultivated by the owner and thereafter for the period from 1965-66 to 1966-67, again, the cultivation is shown by Baswantrao, the respondent No. 1. Needless to mention here that the said transaction was immediately thereafter between the respondent No. 2 and the plaintiff. That is the reason as to why the entries for the years 1967-68 appeared to be in the name of the present petitioners-purchasers. Shri Murar Deshpande, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 1, therefore, wanted to suggest that even when the land was sold, the respondent No. 1 was in cultivating possession of the fields in question as a tenant thereon, which is duly supported by the documents on record. Shri M.K. Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the contrary, tried to suggest that if the evidence is looked into, it would be seen that the story as regards possession of the respondent No. 1 as a tenant on the fields in question could not be accepted as, according to him, the two witnesses who were examined on behalf of the petitioners, have in so many words stated that at no point of time, the respondent No. 1 was seen cultivating the fields in question. Shri M.K. Deshpande argued that two persons, namely, Nagappa and Irappa, happened to be the owners of the adjoining lands who could be said to be the best witnesses on the point of tenancy. According to Shri M.K. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since Nagappa and Irappa both have specifically denied to have seen the respondent No. 1 as a tenant on the fields in question, the learned Counsel for the petitioners wanted to suggest that the oral testimony of Nagappa and Irappa, should have been weighed more than what is shown or indicated in the revenue documents. Though the argument, prima facie, appeared to be appealing one, it is very hard to digest, particularly when the earlier proceedings to which a reference will have to be made in the present judgment, would show that the tenancy of the present respondent No. 1 has been duly sanctioned or recognised by the revenue authorities not only once but thrice and a reference to that effect is definitely made in the judgment of the lower appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Collector, Nanded. 10.It is pertinent to note that Shri M.K. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, tried to take advantage of the dismissal of matter in default, which was initiated at the instance of Baswantrao, respondent No. 1 under section 32(1) of the Act. However, Shri Deshpande, had to frankly admit that the said dismissal in default could not be said to be binding on him as there was no decision on the point of merits in any manner. This proceeding under section 32(1) of the Act was initiated as it was the case of the respondent No. 1-Baswantrao that he was dispossessed and, therefore, he wanted to regain the possession by adopting the procedure contemplated under section 32(1) of the Act. According to Shri M.K. Deshpande since his application under section (sic) 32(1) was rejected, it was not now open for the respondent No. 1 to claim tenancy on the fields in question. I do not find any substance in the contention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and I have no hesitation in rejecting the same outright. 11.The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.K. Deshpande, further, tried to argue that since an objection under section 47 was raised by the respondent No. 1 as regards the present transaction of transfer by respondent No. 2 to petitioners, according to him, since the same was rejected, the present respondent No. 1 could not be said to be entitled to the relief he had asked for. On a specific question which was put to the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to what was the order passed on this objection application under section 47, the learned Counsel was unable to point out the same. In fact there is a reference in the record of the case indicating that the application was not considered. On a specific question which was put to the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to what was the order passed on this objection application under section 47, the learned Counsel was unable to point out the same. In fact there is a reference in the record of the case indicating that the application was not considered. The learned Counsel for the petitioners thereby wanted to suggest that since the application was not considered means that the same was rejected. I find it difficult to accept this argument, particularly when a clear-cut observation is made in the Written Statement that the application was not considered which clearly means that neither there was any discussion on that point nor was there any finding recorded on that point, accepting or rejecting the same. This point is more clear from the Written Statement of the present petitioners which they had filed before the learned Tahsildar, Degloor, which is at record page 25 of the case. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, further, wanted to suggest that since the application under section 47 made by the respondent No. 1 failed to obtain any orders thereon and since the proceedings under section 32(1) went against the respondent No. 1, according to him, by no stretch of imagination, the respondent No. 1 could claim the tenancy rights on the fields in question. He, therefore, tried to segregate and hammer the findings arrived at by the Revenue Authorities on this point, labelling the same as perverse. In fact, the proceedings which were initiated under section 47 or under section 32(1) could not have any effect on the present proceeding and this was rightly so considered by the Revenue authorities below. The question which was for determination before the authorities below was as to whether the respondent No. 1 successfully proved that he was a tenant on the fields in question, much the less at the relevant point of time and further was there any cogent evidence on the record to reach to such a conclusion. Shri M.V. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, has rightly pointed out that the evidence is rightly considered by the revenue authorities below and further pointed out that since the tenancy of the respondent No. 1 has been recognised not only once but thrice, there is no further scope of inquiry on this point. Shri M.V. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, has rightly pointed out that the evidence is rightly considered by the revenue authorities below and further pointed out that since the tenancy of the respondent No. 1 has been recognised not only once but thrice, there is no further scope of inquiry on this point. According to Shri Murar Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, the oral evidence of Nagappa and Irappa could not overweigh the documentary evidence which was on the record. I fully agree with this contention of Shri Murar Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal was right in upholding the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Degloor. 12.As regards the point pertaining to section 8 of the Act, the learned Counsel for petitioners, tried to suggest that the provisions of section 8 is not complied with by the Revenue authorities and he, therefore, wanted to suggest that it led in failure of exercise of jurisdiction properly by the revenue authorities vested in them. However, Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, was unable to elaborate this point, particularly when he was asked as to what type of deficiencies were there in the inquiry by the revenue authorities. Shri Deshpande could not find out any specific deficiency. I have specifically given due consideration to this point and I have gone through the record of the case thoroughly and I do not find, from the record, that there was any mistake committed in the present inquiry nor do I find any shortcoming in the said enquiry. 13.One important point to be noted in the present litigation is that Hanumantrao, the original transferor who had transferred the fields in question in favour of the petitioners, inspite of having served with the notice, remained absent all through. The learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to suggest that, in fact, it was for the tenant-respondent No. 1 to have presented Hanumantrao to prove his case of tenancy. I feel that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is not correct. The learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to suggest that, in fact, it was for the tenant-respondent No. 1 to have presented Hanumantrao to prove his case of tenancy. I feel that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is not correct. In fact, since he was the purchaser from the respondent No. 2-Hanumantrao, he was the best person who could have been produced as a witness by the present petitioners on their behalf to show that at no point of time, Hanumantrao, the respondent No. 2 did lease out the fields in question to the present respondent No. 1. The conduct of the respondent No. 2 in keeping himself aloof and away from the present proceeding as also the conduct of the present petitioners in not producing the best available witness on the point on their behalf, I have no hesitation in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioners on this count that the said respondent No. 2 was intentionally kept back. 14.In view of the discussion above, the present petition needs to be dismissed. The order passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad is maintained. Rule is discharged. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. *****