JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated July 31, 1986 in TEN/80A/70. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed regular civil suit bearing No. 111 of 1977 for redemption of mortgage with regard to the agricultural property viz. the suit lands bearing Survey Nos. 348/11-A, 348/10-B, 9/3-B, 11/3-B, 352/4-B situated at village Nandgaon, Taluka Satara. The suit was filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara in relation to the transaction dated June 2, 1953. The original defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 3) raised a plea that the said transaction was not a mortgage but a sale. It was further contended that prior to the said transaction Bandu Amruta, that is, the alleged mortgagor, was the tenant and his rights should not be defeated in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"); and that the Court had no jurisdiction to decree the redemption and order possession. In view of the said pleadings, the Civil Court framed issue of tenancy so as to refer the same to the Tenancy Court. The issue framed by the Civil Court was as under : "Whether defendent No. 3 proves that the said Bandu Amruta was cultivating the suit land as a tenant of Kundalika Amruta before the transaction dated 2nd June, 1953 ?" 3. The abovesaid issue was accordingly referred to the Tahsildar, Satara, who, after considering the evidence on record was pleased to answer the same in the negative by judgment and order dated September 8, 1976. It may be noted that the respondent No. 2 merely led oral evidence of himself and one another witness in support of the plea that Bandu Amruta was in possession of the suit lands pursuant to the oral lease between him and the predecessor in-title of the petitioner herein viz. Kundalika. It would be relevant to point out at this stage that the said Kundalika Amruta as well as Bandu Amruta were real brothers. 4. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondents preferred appeal, being Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 1977, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara. Kundalika. It would be relevant to point out at this stage that the said Kundalika Amruta as well as Bandu Amruta were real brothers. 4. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondents preferred appeal, being Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 1977, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court that there was no evidence that Bandu Amruta was cultivating the suit land as tenant of Kundalika Amruta before the transaction dated June 2, 1953. It would be appropriate to reproduce the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court, which reads as under : " It is clear that before the lower Court the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their say. The documentary evidence is necessary in the matter where a Tenancy right is to be decided. The appellants had no kabulayat or rent receipt, or any mutation or any entry in the record of rights in support of their say. There is no mention of duration of tenancy in the mortgage deed. The father of the appellants was not a tenant in the suit land before 1953. The record of rights clearly show that Bandu Amruta the father of the appellant No. 1 was in possession of the suit lands as mortgage and not as a tenant. That the appellant has not produced any evidence except his solitary statement and one witness. However, it is not possible to rely on their say in the absence of any other corroborative reliable evidence. I, therefore, feel there is no reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court." 5. The said decision was challenged by the respondents before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Tribunal, after examining the rival stand, instead of deciding the matter on the basis of evidence already on record, took the view that it was necessary to permit the parties to adduce further evidence. Accordingly, Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated July 8, 1981 was pleased to allow the Revision Application filed by the respondents and set aside the orders passed by the courts below and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh inquiry and evidence to be led by the parties. 6. Accordingly, Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated July 8, 1981 was pleased to allow the Revision Application filed by the respondents and set aside the orders passed by the courts below and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh inquiry and evidence to be led by the parties. 6. The petitioners, however, took exception to the said remand order passed by the Revenue Tribunal by filing writ petition being Writ Petition No. 591 of 1982 in this Court. This Court, after examining the matter, in effect, recorded a finding that the assumption on the basis of which the Tribunal proceeded was wholly unwarranted, that is, the same was not borne out either from the pleadings or from the record of the case. It would be appropriate to reproduce the observations made by this court in its order dated September 8, 1982 as under: "That order is patently erroneous. After referring to the definition of the word "deemed tenant" in section 4 of the Act, the learned Member went on to observe that Kundalika was residing separately and, therefore, sought evidence to find out whether he was getting the lands cultivated by others. The order, therefore, assumes that is was not possible for such a person to look after the lands personally. No witness through whom he got the lands cultivated is said to have been examined. Reference then is made to the 7/12 extracts for the year 1952-53 showing that Kundalika was cultivating the lands. Thereafter, Bandu Amruta's name came to be shown as cultivating the lands. After making reference to these entries, the order states that the case requires further investigation and full evidence. The entire basis for such assumption was not warranted either by the pleadings or by the record of the case. It was nobody's case that the Court below had not given any opportunity either to plead or to prove their respective cases. In fact, the parties had tendered whatever evidence they wanted to tender. That evidence was considered by the courts below. The assumption by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune that Kundalika was cultivating the lands by someone else does not fairly decide the point in issue. If the Tribunal were to go by the record, the 7/12 extracts till the year 1952-53 clearly showed the cultivation by Kundalika. That evidence was considered by the courts below. The assumption by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune that Kundalika was cultivating the lands by someone else does not fairly decide the point in issue. If the Tribunal were to go by the record, the 7/12 extracts till the year 1952-53 clearly showed the cultivation by Kundalika. It is indeed difficult to find any reason why the Tribunal thought that further investigation was necessary into the case and that too by remanding the matter. It is, thus, obvious that the remand order made by the Tribunal is unsustainable. The Tribunal was bound to decide the revision on the basis of the material tendered by the parties. The order impugned in the present petition is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Designated Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune to hear the parties afresh and decide the same according to law without any further remand. Rule is made absolute in these terms with no order as to costs. (emphasis supplied) 7. In other words, after the aforesaid order passed by this court, the nature of inquiry which was to be done by the Tribunal was very limited. Nevertheless, the Tribunal, by a lengthy judgment running into about 19 pages, discussed the evidence on record and once again recorded the same conclusion which was reversed by this Court. This time the Tribunal found that besides the 7/12 extracts indicating the name of Kundalika there was no other evidence to show that Kundalika was cultivating the suit lands personally or through the labours. Having taken this view of the matter, the Tribunal thereafter proceeded to hold that in view of the entries appearing in the 7/12 extracts and the oral evidence of the respondents, it will have to be held that Bandu Amruta was cultivating the suit land as tenant thereof. The Tribunal, while dealing with the contention that Bandu Amruta, being relation and family member of Kundalika Amruta was not entitled to set up the plea of tenancy, has held in favour of Bandu Amruta that he was in occupation of the suit lands as tenant. 8. The petitioners herein have taken exception to the aforesaid decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated July 31, 1986 by this present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioners herein have taken exception to the aforesaid decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated July 31, 1986 by this present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Tribunal clearly acted beyond jurisdiction in adjudicating matter which was not open after the positive conclusion recorded by this Court while remanding the matter. It is further contended that, in any case, two Courts below, after examining the evidence on record have concurrently found that Bandu Amruta cannot be said to be in occupation of the suit lands as tenant, therefore it was not open to the Tribunal while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 76 of the Act, which is of limited nature, to reverse the said finding on fact. It is further contended that the respondents have not led any evidence regarding the existence of lease in favour to Bandu Amruta, on the basis of which Bandu Amruta is said to have been in possession of the suit lands as tenants. It is further contended that Bandu Amruta, being the real brother of Kundalika Amruta, it was not open for him to claim tenancy rights in view of the bar under section 4 of the Act that a member of the owner's family cannot be a tenant in respect of the agricultural land, though lawfully occupied by him. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (Hanmanta Daulappa Nimbal v. B.D. Londhe)1, A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 223 to contend that mere entries in the 7/12 extract would be of no avail and cannot be the sole basis for deciding the claim of tenancy. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (Sitaram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil (dead) by L.Rs.)2 A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 1712, to contend that even if there has been a separation in the family of the land owner, even thereafter the separated family member continues to be the member of the owner's family. Thus, such a member of the family is not entitled to set up the claim of tenancy against the owner who is his relation. Thus, such a member of the family is not entitled to set up the claim of tenancy against the owner who is his relation. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment reported in (A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 205)3, to contend that the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under section 76 of the Act in overturning the well reasoned finding of fact recorded by the two courts below. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents Shri B.S. Vaidya has mainly supported the finding recorded by the Tribunal for having concluded that Bandu Amruta was cultivating the suit land as tenant of said Shri Kundalika Amruta. It is contended by him that the claim of tenancy of Bandu Amruta is based on the oral lease between the parties. According to him, creation of contractual tenancy was permissible even between the family members of the land owner and bar under section 4 shall have no application in such a situation. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in overturning findings of fact recorded by two courts below as well as the scope of remand which was ordered by this Court by order dated September 8, 1982. According to me, this Court unambiguously recorded a finding in the previous round that the Tribunal has proceeded on assumptions which were wholly unwarranted and not borne out from the pleadings or the record of the case. This Court, in so many words found that the assumption by the Tribunal that Kundalika was cultivating the lands by some one else does not fairly decide the point in issue and that if the Tribunal was to go by 7/12 extracts till the year 1952-53 would clearly show the cultivation by Kundalika. This, in my view, is clearly an expression of opinion on the issue adjudicated upon by this court. After this opinion, nothing much was left for the Tribunal to once again examine the same issue and reiterate its earlier conclusion that there was no evidence to show that Kundalika was cultivating the lands in dispute or was cultivating through labourers. Accordingly, the said finding reached by the Tribunal after remand cannot be sustained at all. After this opinion, nothing much was left for the Tribunal to once again examine the same issue and reiterate its earlier conclusion that there was no evidence to show that Kundalika was cultivating the lands in dispute or was cultivating through labourers. Accordingly, the said finding reached by the Tribunal after remand cannot be sustained at all. Besides the fact, that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by overlooking the scope of remand, in my view, the Tribunal was wholly wrong and acted without authority in overturning the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below. The finding recorded by the Appellate Court as has been reproduced above, would show that the two courts below have considered the entire evidence on record, both documentary and oral, and found that there was no lease deed or rent receipts or any mutation or entry in the record of rights in support of the plea set up by the respondents that Bandu Amruta was cultivating the suit lands as tenants of Kundalika Amruta. On the other hand, both the courts below have recorded a clear finding that the entries in the 7/12 extract clearly go to show that Bandu Amruta, the father of respondent No. 3 was in possession of the suit lands as mortgagee and not as a tenant. Both the courts below have also found that the respondents/defendants had failed to produce any documentary evidence except their solitary oral statement and, in the absence of any corroborative/reliable material, the conclusion reached by the two courts below could not have been taken exception to. For this reason, I am of the view that the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under section 76 of the Act in reappreciating the evidence and overturning the findings recorded by the two courts below. 11. Now, coming to the other question as to whether Bandu Amruta was entitled to claim tenancy rights in respect of suit lands being the real brother of Kundalika Amruta, I am inclined to take the view that in view of the judgment of this court in (Niavabai v. Chanamaluppa)4, 1977 Maharashtra Law Journal 443 it was not open for the respondents to contend that because of partition, Bandu Amruta has separated and was therefore entitled to set up plea of tenancy. Section 4 of the Act clearly stipulates that a member of the owner's family, though cultivating the land belonging to another person, cannot be deemed to be a tenant even if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner. In the circumstances, I hold that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law even on this count. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated July 31, 1986 is totally unsustainable, both on facts and in law and the same deserves to be set aside; and that the decisions of the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer be restored. 13. Since the suit has been instituted by the petitioners as back as in the year 1971 and has remained pending so long due to the unstatable and frivolous stand taken by the respondents, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara is directed to hear and finally decide the said suit within 6 months from the receipt of this order. The parties shall appear before the Civil Court, Senior Division, Satara on 10th July, 2000 so as to enable the Civil Judge to fix further dates for hearing the suit. The learned advocates appearing for both the parties assure that they shall not ask for any adjournment before the Civil Judge on any pretext which will tend to protract the hearing of the suit. The learned Civil Judge shall not entertain any request for adjournment and proceed to hear and finally dispose of the suit on day to day basis. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal dated July 31, 1986 is set aside and, instead, the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated July 25, 1978 and that of the Tahsildar, Satara dated September 18, 1976 are restored. Writ petition is allowed with costs throughout. Rule made absolute. Office to send writ forthwith alongwith record and proceedings. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. Certified copy expedited. Writ petition allowed. -----