ORDER T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Land Tribunal Haveri in Order No. TEN.OCP.SR.149+55, granting occupancy right jointly in favour of the Petitioners and Respondents 1 to 5. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was a tenant of the land measuring 9 acres 8 guntas since 1952-53 and he has been in possession and cultivating the land in question. The Respondents 1 to 4, brothers, and Respondent-5 is another brother's son. It is claimed that the Respondents have divided the property and they were concerned with the lands in question. The 6th Respondent's mother filed resumption and the same came to be abetted in view of the amendment. It is further transpired that O.S. 94 of 1973 was filed by the Petitioner against Respondents 1 and 2 and injunction was obtained against them. It is contended that Form No. 7 was filed by the Petitioner, but the Tribunal has chosen to grant the same to both the Petitioners and the Respondents. That order was challenged earlier in Writ Petition No. 5934 of 1976, which order was set aside and the matter remitted back. On remand again the same order was passed and again the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 24273 of 1981 and again the matter was remitted. It is the same order that is came to be passed for the second time. Now the order so passed on 29.4.1992 for the second time in succession confirming the earlier order by the Tribunal is challenged in the writ petition. 3. In the grounds raised in the writ petition, it is contended that the Tribunal has not considered the oral and documentary evidence; no enquiry was held under Section 48 of the Act read with Rule 17; principles of natural justice has been violated and application for recalling the order filed by the Petitioner was not challenged. Only these four grounds are raised and no other point is raised in the grounds of appeal. 4. In the objection statement filed by Respondents 3 to 5, it is submitted that the land was originally cultivated by the family. Therefore, joint occupancy right in favour of the family of the Petitioner was granted on 24.9.1982 confirming the land as a leasehold right of the joint family and not leasehold right of the individual. 4. In the objection statement filed by Respondents 3 to 5, it is submitted that the land was originally cultivated by the family. Therefore, joint occupancy right in favour of the family of the Petitioner was granted on 24.9.1982 confirming the land as a leasehold right of the joint family and not leasehold right of the individual. Such a right conferred on the basis of the joint family cannot be challenged by an individual before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If at all he has aggrieved, he has to go before the Civil Court to establish his right and not resort to. It is further submitted by Mr. F.V. Patil appearing for Respondents 3 to 5 that originally one Fakeerappa, son of Lokkappa Karad is the father of the Petitioner and Respondents 1 to 4 and also grand father of Respondent-5. The land in question was belonging to ownership of one Lakshmibai Gudi, she is the mother of Respondent-6, present owner of the land in question. The said Lakshmi Bai leased the land in favour of the father of the Petitioner and Respondents 1 to 4 and grandfather of Respondent-5 prior to 1944, as the Bombay Tenancy Act came into force subsequent to 1944, the name of Fakeerappa was entered as a protected tenant in respect of RS No. 17 of Devigiri village by Mutation Entry No. 58. The said Fakeerappa continued to cultivate the land in question as a protected tenant till his death. The record of rights show that the said Fakeerappa continued to cultivate the land in question prior to 1944-45 as a protected tenant and thereafter paying rent at Rs. 80/- per year. After the death of Fakeerappa, both the Petitioner and Respondents 1 to 5, as legal representatives of Fakeerappa, inherited the tenancy rights and continued to cultivate the land in question by joint family. 5. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the eldest member in the family and during 1952 to 1953 he was working as a Teacher and he was the only educated man in the family serving as a teacher in different places. Taking advantage of his literacy, and also the ill-health of Fakeerappa, he got entered his name in the record of rights with the help of the Village Accountant. Taking advantage of his literacy, and also the ill-health of Fakeerappa, he got entered his name in the record of rights with the help of the Village Accountant. The said entry was made as a member of the joint family and cultivating the land jointly and there is no creation of any tenancy. At the time of entering the name of the Petitioner in the record of rights in 1955, the family of the Petitioner and that of Respondents was joint and there was no partition. Even the Petitioner was not residing in the village as he was posted at different places. The record of rights discloses that the land in question is being cultivated by the Petitioner not in his individual capacity but as a member of the joint family. It was further asserted that all the lands, except the tenanted land, was divided in the year 1957. The land in question was not put under partition on the ground that it is a tenanted land. The land in question was jointly cultivated by the Petitioner and Respondents amicably. As the Petitioner was residing in different places as a teacher, he has collected the land revenue and also rent payable to the landlord and the Petitioner has made an entry to that effect. Apart from this, the Petitioner has also written various letters to the Respondents from different places between the period 18.6.1952 and 13.11.1968, showing that the land in question is being cultivated jointly and not exclusively by the Petitioner. After relying on these documents, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the tenancy is a joint family tenancy and not an individual tenancy. 6. It was further contended that the RLC proceedings indicate that the land was standing in the name of the Petitioner as a member of the joint family and the same in no way establish the exclusive cultivation of the Petitioner as a tenant of the land in question. The Tribunal has rightly held, after taking into consideration the fact that the father of the Petitioner and Respondents 1 to 5 i.e., Fakeerappa, is a protected tenant of the land in question and after his demise the tenancy rights have been inherited by the Petitioner and Respondents 1 to 5. The Tribunal also took into account the various letters written by the Petitioner and also taking into account the Book Nos. The Tribunal also took into account the various letters written by the Petitioner and also taking into account the Book Nos. I and II, wherein he has made an entry to the effect that the land revenue and rent is being sent after collecting it from the members of the joint family. The Tribunal also took into account the occupation of the Petitioner as a teacher serving at different places. On these facts, the Tribunal has granted the occupancy rights for and on behalf of the joint family. 7. It was further contended that the Land Tribunal on three occasions i.e., 19.4.1976, 5.9.1981 and 29.4.1992 conferred occupancy rights jointly. On two earlier occasions, namely, on 19.4.1976 and 5.9.1981 on technical ground, the matter was remanded by this Court. After permitting the Petitioner as well as Respondents to lead evidence and to produce the documents, if any, the Tribunal has passed the order on 29.4.1992. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. F.V. Patil that the definition of 'agriculturist' occurring under Section 2(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act does not and cannot include a teacher and a teacher cannot ride two horses, that is, teaching the students and attending to the land for cultivation during rest hours. According to him, Section 2(3) read with 2(11) excludes the claim of the teacher as now made by the Petitioner. On this ground also the petition is not maintainable. 9. The learned Counsel also relied upon the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in Booda Poojary Vs. Smt. Thoma Poojarthi and others, AIR 1993 Kant 39 and also the decision of the Division Bench in Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa and Others, 1978 (1) KLJ 459. 10. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 11. The questions that arose for consideration, in this petition are: 1) Whether the Petitioner as a teacher can claim to be an agriculturist? 2) Whether tenancy held by the joint family can be questioned by way of writ petition before this Court? 3) Whether the Petitioner can claim the property to the exclusion of the other properties? 12. In my opinion the Petitioner who is admittedly the teacher can never be called himself as an agriculturist and claim any benefit under this Act. Section 2(3) reads agriculturist himself a person who owns the lands personally. 3) Whether the Petitioner can claim the property to the exclusion of the other properties? 12. In my opinion the Petitioner who is admittedly the teacher can never be called himself as an agriculturist and claim any benefit under this Act. Section 2(3) reads agriculturist himself a person who owns the lands personally. But cultivation personally has been defined under Section 2(11), which is in the following terms: to cultivate personally" means to cultivate and on one's own account- (i) by one's own labour, or (ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or; (iii) by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind, but not in crop share, under the personal supervision of oneself or by member of one's family. 13. It is surprising to note that the Petitioner has not come with clean hands. He has suppressed in the petition that he is a teacher. Had he come forward with true facts that he was a teacher and at the same time he is an agriculturist, one can very well understand that suppression of material facts by itself is certainly a ground for rejection of the writ petition. As the Petitioner has come forward with unclean hands, suppressed the material particulars, which, if discloses would have rendered his petition itself not maintainable. In fact Section 2(10) reads as follows: "to cultivate" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means to till or husband the land for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce whether by manual labour or by means of cattle or machinery, or to carry on any agricultural operation thereon; and the expression "uncultivated" shall be construed correspondingly. 14. Probably the teacher as a person is expected, of telling everything before the Court of law. It is also not in dispute that he was a teacher. The voluminous documents filed before the Tribunal go to show that not only as a teacher he was collecting the share of all the brothers to pay rent to the landlord and it is unfortunate that he has suppressed the material facts. It is also not in dispute that he was a teacher. The voluminous documents filed before the Tribunal go to show that not only as a teacher he was collecting the share of all the brothers to pay rent to the landlord and it is unfortunate that he has suppressed the material facts. When the tenancy was sought to be claimed by a teacher and such a teacher claims to be the tenant to the exclusion of all other brothers who are real agriculturist and who are not impleaded anywhere else, how the entry came in his name alone, is a question to be understood and such entry cannot have any credence at all in the eye of law, as is evident from the records. Therefore, as a teacher he is not entitled to maintain or claim any occupancy right at all. 15. The complaint of no hearing or non-compliance of rule alone that are made grounds in the writ petition also has to fail. It has been clearly pointed out by the learned Counsel Mr. Patil that in his arguments as well as in the statement of objections that a very detailed order was passed by the Tribunal after providing every possible opportunity to the Petitioner. He never complained. The mere fact that order was passed on the same day does not make the order bad. It is open to the Tribunal to pass orders on the very same day and there is no prohibition that the order shall not be passed on the same day. Anyhow, the grounds urged in the writ petition does not need any interference from this Court on the order passed by the Tribunal. Thirdly, it is also seen that in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Booda Poojary v. Thomu Poojarthy, in particular paragraph 8 that once the tenancy right is granted it become the property of the joint family and if a share is claimed by one of the members it is for them to approach the Civil Court. It is also seen that on three occasions the Petitioner was going on tapping the doors of the Land Tribunal and every time he goes there the Tribunal has passed the right order holding that the tenancy of the joint family is not individual and consequently the tenancy is granted jointly in favour of the sons of the original tenant. 16. A reference is made to the suit O.S. 93 of 1973. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the suit is only in respect of Defendants 1 and 2 and that too it was an ex parte decree against his own brothers. Therefore, such a decree cannot come to the aid of the Petitioner. The reference to the mutation entry referred to in Annexure-M cannot also come to the aid of the Petitioner, in as much as such entry was set aside at the appropriate time when the matter was pending in the High Court. The documents filed along with the objection statement clearly goes to show that in 1946-47 the entry was in the name of the father Fakeerappa who is claims to be the protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy Act as well. The record of rights from 1944-45 to 1954-55 shows the name of the Petitioner's father. How suddenly it came to be changed in the name of the Petitioner is not explained. It is sought to be explained by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he began to pay rent during the life time of the father and that is how the entries came to be made in his favour. Whether such entry was changed after notice to the father and sons is not explained nor show and even if he was paying the rent it is not explained as to why in the various letters referred to in the objection statement right from 1952 onwards, that is, the letters dated 13.9.1963, 10.11.1968, 1.7.1961, 13.3.1955, 24.11.1952, 24.4.1952, 13.12.1958, 26.5.1965, 7.7.1952 and 18.6.1952, wherein the land in question is claiming to be cultivated jointly by the Petitioner himself. In such a contingency, one has to infirm that the teacher as an educated man have to hatch up a plot to deprive his own brothers of the properties and deprive them away from the property. It is certainly not fair, just and not equitable and just. In such a contingency, one has to infirm that the teacher as an educated man have to hatch up a plot to deprive his own brothers of the properties and deprive them away from the property. It is certainly not fair, just and not equitable and just. The very fact that he lost the game for more than one occasion shows that there is absolutely nothing in his claim and he is going on filing petition after petition probably he continued till he gets what he wanted. Certainly this is not the way in which the legal proceeding can be exploited to the detriment of the other members of the family who are his own uterine brothers. I am constrained to say that the conduct of the teacher who is supposed to teach others is not commendable. Looking at any point, I find that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition. 17. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- to both the Counsel for Respondents.