JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the judgment and order of M.R.T. Pune dated 29-4-1987 in Revision No. 3/83 (Ten B. 125/83). 2. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 are the heirs of original defendant Bhimrao. Respondent No. 1 is the original landlord in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 42 admeasuring 14 acres 29 gunthas situated at village Talegaon, North Solapur taluka. The said Bhimrao was cultivating the suit land as tenant since prior to 1-4-1957, therefore, suo motu proceedings were initiated by A.L.T. in the year 1961 under section 32-G of the B.T. A.L. Act. In the said proceedings the said Bhimrao, predecessor in title of the petitioners, was declared to be the tenant and having become deemed purchaser in respect of the suit lands being tenant in possession on tiller's day. The ALT by its order dated 30-12-1961 fixed the purchase price in respect of the suit land. The respondent No. 1 took exception to the said order by filing Appeal No. 125 of 1966, which appeal was filed almost after 5 years from the date on which the A.L.T. had determined the purchase price in respect of the suit land. In the said appeal the respondent No. 1 inter alia, contended that in the proceedings under section 32-G ought not to have been decided during the pendency of the disposal of his application for possession of the suit land under section 14 read with 25 of the Act for possession of the suit land on the ground of default. The respondent No. 1 also contended that original tenant was holding agricultural land in excess of ceiling area and as such was not entitled to be declared as deemed purchaser of the land which was held in excess of the ceiling area. The S.D.O., who heard the appeal, by his order held that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 was barred by limitation. In so far as the ground of default is concerned, the Appeal Court held that A.L.T. rightly dismissed the said application under section 14 of the Act. The Appellate Court further held that the respondent No. 1 had failed to lead any evidence to show that tenant was holding land in excess of the ceiling area. The appeal came to be dismissed by the S.D.O., by order dated 13-5-1968. The Appellate Court further held that the respondent No. 1 had failed to lead any evidence to show that tenant was holding land in excess of the ceiling area. The appeal came to be dismissed by the S.D.O., by order dated 13-5-1968. Against the said decision the respondent No. 1 took up the matter in revision before the Tribunal. The only point which was agitated before the Tribunal on behalf of the respondent No. 1 was regarding the excess holding of the tenant Bhimrao. The Tribunal took into account certain documents which were filed in evidence in regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 1961, filed by Bhimrao's brother against Bhimrao for partition, and therefore by order dated 8-10-1970 ordered fresh enquiry by remanding the same to the A.L.T. After the said remand the A.L.T. held that the land was cultivated by Bhimrao on behalf of entire joint family consisting of his father, brothers and sons and the tenancy was vested in the joint family. According to the A.L.T. the holding of the joint family was 45 acres 21 gunthas which was in excess of ceiling area of 48 acres. The A.L.T. accordingly declared that Bhimrao was not entitled to purchase the suit land as deemed purchaser. After the said decision of the A.L.T. the original tenant Bhimrao died. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein carried the matter in appeal before the S.D.O. Solapur. The said appeal was however dismissed by the S.D.O. and the conclusion reached by A.L.T. that tenant was not entitled to purchase the suit land came to be confirmed. The petitioners herein thereafter filed revision before the Tribunal. In the said Revision No. 5 of 1975, the Tribunal, after examining the rival contentions, conclusively held that tenancy was created in favour of Bhimrao in his individual capacity and not being the Manager of the joint family. The Tribunal held that tenancy held by the members of the joint family must be presumed to be individual unless contrary is proved. The Tribunal also recorded a very specific finding that on examining the plaint of brother of Bhimrao in the Civil Court praying for partition of the joint family properties, the suit lands were not included in the subject matter of the said suit. The Tribunal also recorded a very specific finding that on examining the plaint of brother of Bhimrao in the Civil Court praying for partition of the joint family properties, the suit lands were not included in the subject matter of the said suit. In other words, according to the Tribunal, taking any view of the matter, the suit lands were held by the Bhimrao in his individual capacity. The Tribunal also concluded that having regard to the total holding of the joint family the share of the Bhimrao in the said property which is only 1/3rd and as such his holding excluding the suit land come to only 14 acres 7 gunthas. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the said Bhimrao is entitled to be declared as deemed purchaser of the suit lands and after recorded the said findings the Tribunal remanded the matter to the A.L.T. for the limited purpose of fixing the purchase price in respect of the suit lands. It is relevant to point out that the said decision of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the respondent No. 1 and the same has attained finality. In other words, the proceedings before the A.L.T. were remanded only for the limited purpose of fixing the purchase price and not to adjudicating on the right of Bhimrao to be declared as deemed purchaser as the said issue was finally concluded by the finding recorded by the Tribunal which remained unchallenged. 3. After the remand the A.L.T. considered the rival contentions and was pleased to fix the purchase price in respect of the suit land to the extent of 9 acres and 23 gunthas out of total 14 acres and 29 gunthas and further held that the sale of 5 acres and three gunthas as ineffective. It appears that A.L.T. declared that purchase has become ineffective in respect of 5 acres and 3 gunthas of land on the basis that same would be in excess of the ceiling holding of Bhimrao. Being aggrieved by the said decision both the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 1 preferred separate appeals before the S.D.O. The petitioner challenged the conclusion recorded by the A.L.T. that purchase in respect of land admeasuring 5 acres 3 gunthas had become ineffective. Being aggrieved by the said decision both the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 1 preferred separate appeals before the S.D.O. The petitioner challenged the conclusion recorded by the A.L.T. that purchase in respect of land admeasuring 5 acres 3 gunthas had become ineffective. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 challenged the judgment of the A.L.T. only with regard to the determining the purchase price in respect of 9 acres and 23 gunthas of the suit land. The S.D.O., however by order dated 31-3-1978 proceeded to decide only the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein. In other words, the S.D.O. did not pass any order on the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1. Naturally, the respondent No. 1, being aggrieved preferred revision before the M.R.T. at Pune. The Tribunal by order dated 25-3-1981 was pleased to allow the revision application and remanded the matter to S.D.O. to decide both the appeals being Appeal No. 56 of 1977 and 1/1978 for being decided on merits after giving opportunity to both the parties. 4. After the said remand, the S.D.O. by his order dated 20-2-1983 held that since the said Bhimrao had become deemed purchaser, and his holding was less than the ceiling limit was entitled to purchase the suit lands. Therefore, the S.D.O. declared that purchase in favour of heirs of Bhimrao had become effective. The S.D.O. therefore confirmed the purchase in favour of the petitioners but sent back the case to the A.L.T. only for determination of the purchase price of the suit lands as per law. This order came to be challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal. The Tribunal instead of confining its revisional power regarding the correctness of the decision relating to the fixing of the purchase price went on to decide the matter afresh including as to whether the said Bhimrao had become deemed purchaser and entitled to purchase the suit land. The Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that the suit land was part of the joint family property and that Bhimrao cultivated the suit land prior to 1-4-1957 only as member of the joint family and has therefore not entitled to purchase the suit land as having become deemed purchaser. The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent and was pleased to set aside the orders passed by the courts below. 5. The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent and was pleased to set aside the orders passed by the courts below. 5. Against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal the present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below, while exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction under section 76 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 305)1, to contend that the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different finding of the fact than the one recorded by the courts below unless the finding of facts so recorded was perverse. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand, strongly supported the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. 6. After having examined the rival contentions and after closely scrutinising the record I find that the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under section 76 of the said Act. Moreover, the scope of the present proceedings before the Tribunal was very limited one. So far as the finding recorded as to whether the petitioner became deemed purchaser, the same had attained finality and was not challenged by the respondent No. 1. Admittedly, the said decision has not been challenged by the respondent No. 1 at any point of time. Accordingly, the only issue that could have been examined by the courts below in the present round of litigation was regarding fixation of the purchase price and nothing more. Instead of confining to that limited issue, the Tribunal clearly exceeded its authority to decide the entire matter afresh, without being bound by the earlier decision of the same Court, which had attained finality. Besides the Tribunal proceeded on totally wrong assumption that said Bhimrao was cultivating the suit land prior to 1-4-1957 as member of the joint family and not in his individual capacity. This assumption over looks the finding recorded by the Courts below and which finding had attained finality. In that the suit lands are not subject matter of the civil suit for partition which was filed between the brothers of Bhimrao inter se. This assumption over looks the finding recorded by the Courts below and which finding had attained finality. In that the suit lands are not subject matter of the civil suit for partition which was filed between the brothers of Bhimrao inter se. Moreover, courts below have concurrently found that there is nothing on record to discard the presumption that the suit lands were held by Bhimrao in his individual capacity. In the circumstances the Tribunal has clearly misdirected itself and has committed error apparent on the face of record in concluding that the suit lands were held by Bhimrao as member of the joint family. Once the said finding recorded by the Tribunal is upset, in that case, there is no reason to deny the relief to the petitioners herein, inasmuch as, it has been conclusively held that Bhimrao was cultivating the suit land in his individual capacity and his holding was less than the ceiling area. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law and the same deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the decision of the S.D.O. dated 28-2-1983 will have to be restored and the tenancy authorities to proceed to take necessary consequential steps for fixing the purchase price. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances this writ petition is allowed with costs. Rule is made absolute. Impugned order passed by M.R.T., Pune dated 29-4-1987 is set aside and instead the order passed by S.D.O. Solapur Division, Solapur dated 28-2-1983 in Tenancy Appeal No. 3 of 1981 is restored. Certified copy expedited. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by Sheristedar of this Court. Rule made absolute. -----