JUDGMENT- J.G. CHITRE, J.:---Both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment because the land involved is the same and some of the parties appearing in this petitions are one way or the other, related to each of them in their relation as litigants. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2791 of 1988 named Smt. Anusayabai Khashaba Pawar, resident of Malkapur, Taluka Karad, District Satara claimed to be the tenant of land No. 598-B measuring 10 Acres 28 gunthas and Pot Kharab 30 Gunthas (5 hectare and 9 ares). She averred that her father-in-law, her predecessor in title, was tenant of the suit land since 1932/1933 which originally belonged to Mr. Vithal Balkrishna Shikare. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in the said petition are his heirs. The said land was mortgaged by the heirs of Vithal Balkrishna Shikare to Mr. Bhau Nagu Yedage in the year 1938. Now the said Bhau Nagu Yedage has expired and the matter has been pursued further by his legal representatives. It appears from the record that there is a registered mortgage deed executed by Vasudeo Vithal Shikare, Hanumant Vithal Shikare. Sumita Vasantrao Wakade, Shushila Vithal Shikare and Sumati Madhukar Panse. A suit is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad in respect of foreclosure of the said mortgage and as it has been submitted by the Counsel appearing for them a preliminary decree has been passed in it, around which Writ Petition No. 5477 of 1988 is revolving. 3. In initial round of battle of litigations Tahsildar and ALT, Karad did not hold that Anusayabai was the tenant of the suit land. The matter went to Sub-Divisional Officer, who set aside the judgment and order passed by Tahsildar ALT, Karad and held that Anusayabai was the tenant of the said land. Defeated adversary filed revision which was decided by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal who confirmed the judgment and order which was passed in favour of Anusayabai by Sub-Divisional Officer. The judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was assailed by adversary of the petitioner by filing a Special Civil Application bearing No. 3027 of 1973 in the High Court which was decided by the Single Bench of this Court on 6th September, 1984 whereby the Single Bench of this Court confirmed the declaration that Anusayabai was the tenant of the said land. The adversaries including Bhau Nagu Yedage and legal representatives filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Record shows that in the Supreme Court those litigants withdrew the Special Leave Petition with permission to file a suit which was granted by the Supreme Court and the said Special Leave Petition was disposed of. Thus contention of Anusayabai that she happens to be tenant of the suit land became final. 4. In view of the said judgment and order Anusayabai moved an application before the Tahsildar ALT, Karad under the provisions of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Bombay Tenancy Act”, for convenience) with a prayer to fix a price of the land which she wanted to purchase in view of the provisions of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar issued notices to concerned parties for the purpose of fixing price of the said land. The price was fixed, a certificate in view of provisions of section 32-M was directed to be issued to present petitioner Anusayabai, the said judgment and order was challenged by respondent No. 1, in Writ Petition No. 2791 of 1988. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed his appeal. He filed a revision petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the judgment and order passed by Tahsildar and ALT, Karad as well as by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karad and declared that present petitioner Anusayabai was not a tenant of the land in question and that judgment and order is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition No. 2791 of 1988. 5. Miss Desai appearing for petitioner Anusayabai submitted that the Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exercised the jurisdiction which he did not have and went behind the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 3027 of 1973 whereby the declaration of Mamlatdar ALT, Karad declaring Anusayabai as tenant of the land in question was set aside. Miss Desai submitted that the learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal used the xerox copies of sale deeds by flouting the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and gave conclusions which were unwarranted, illegal and were against the interest of Anusayabai dislodging her right of being tenant of the land in question which was declared by two revenue courts below. Miss Desai submitted that the learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal used the xerox copies of sale deeds by flouting the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and gave conclusions which were unwarranted, illegal and were against the interest of Anusayabai dislodging her right of being tenant of the land in question which was declared by two revenue courts below. She also submitted that the present respondent No. 1 was not party to the proceedings which was initiated on the application of Anusayabai which was preferred by her before Tahsildar ALT, Karad in view of provision of section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy Act. She demonstrated as to how the said judgment and order is illegal. 6. Mr. Waingankar appearing for respondent No. 1 justified the said judgment and order. Mr. Hombalkar appearing for other respondents, the heirs of Vithal Balkrishna Shikare also justified the impugned judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 7. In view of the submissions advanced before me and the material on record, I firstly deal with Writ Petition No. 2791 of 1988 and thereafter I will express my opinion about merits and the order which is to be passed in Writ Petition No. 5477 of 1988. 8. The revisional powers are to be exercised carefully and by remaining within the jurisdiction which has been conferred by law on a Court or authority. It has to see whether the judgments and orders impugned in revision are consistent with material on record and/or evidence on record. It is for that authority to see whether conclusions drawn by the courts below or the authorities below are consistent with evidence on record or material on record. It has also to see whether the conclusions drawn are consistent with prevalent law. It is not permissible for the revisional authority to introduce a material which is all together not permissible to be introduced and not permissible to be considered, leave aside agitated. It has also to see whether the conclusions drawn are consistent with prevalent law. It is not permissible for the revisional authority to introduce a material which is all together not permissible to be introduced and not permissible to be considered, leave aside agitated. In the present case when the status of present petitioner Anusayabai as tenant was confirmed by the Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Special Civil Application No. 3027 of 1973, when it was so declared by the Mamlatdar ALT, Karad and when this Court was dealing with the application which was preferred by present petitioner Anusayabai in view of provisions of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act, it was necessary for the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to keep it in mind that the said judgment and order passed by the Mamlatdar ALT, Karad was confirmed by Sub-Divisional Officer, the appellate authority. Therefore, two judgments and orders confirming the status of the present petitioner as tenant was before it and that status had been confirmed by judgment of the Single Bench of High Court. When that was so, it was totally unwarranted for the Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to go on probing behind the judgment of the Single Bench of the High Court. That was totally improper and that was not befitting of any judicial authority. 9. The learned Member did not notice also that the present respondent No. 1 was not party to the proceedings which was initiated before Mamlatdar ALT, Karad when the case was dealt with in an application which was moved by Anusayabai for fixing the price of the land and declaring her by the Competent Court to be a tenant. Thus in revisional jurisdiction the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal entertained such contention raised by present respondent No. 1, not only that it went on probing the status of present petitioner Anusayabai that of the tenant which was declared to be so by competent revenue Court and was so confirmed by the High Court. While doing so the learned Member by ignoring the provisions of Indian Evidence Act utilised the xerox copies of some of the sale deeds and after that recorded conclusion that present petitioner Anusayabai was not the tenant because she was blameable of suppression of facts relating to those sale deeds which could not be admitted into evidence. 10. While doing so the learned Member by ignoring the provisions of Indian Evidence Act utilised the xerox copies of some of the sale deeds and after that recorded conclusion that present petitioner Anusayabai was not the tenant because she was blameable of suppression of facts relating to those sale deeds which could not be admitted into evidence. 10. Thus, the learned Member exercised the jurisdiction which did not vest with him, acted against the provisions of law and norm of discipline of judicial system. Therefore, he landed in error in passing the said judgment and order. It being the judgment and order inconsistent with material on record, norms of judicial discipline and being illegal it has to be set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner. Thus, this Court by granting writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner set aside the said judgment by quashing it and declares that Anusayabai, the present petitioner happens to be a tenant of the land in question and she is entitled to purchase it in view of the judgment and order passed by the Mamlatdar ALT, Karad who fixed the price and directed a certificate to be issued to her in view of provisions of section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 11. This Court now turns to next aspect of the matter which has been revealed by Writ Petition No. 5477 of 1988 which has been filed by the heirs of Vithal Balkrishna Shikare. Said petition is challenging the interim decree which has been passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad, which foreclosed the mortgage in respect of the land in question which was mortgaged by the heirs of Vithal Balkrishna Shikare in favour of Bhau Nagu Yedage. The said decree is in favour of the heirs of the deceased Bhau Nagu Yedage. Though the challenge has been put to the said preliminary decree, the submission advanced by Mr. Hombalkar shows that, as this Court understands, those heirs are ready to pay the mortgage money. They are entitled to do so within a period which is permissible by law after passing of said preliminary decree. They are at liberty to move an appropriate application before the said Court which passed the said preliminary decree or the executing Court as the case may be. They are entitled to do so within a period which is permissible by law after passing of said preliminary decree. They are at liberty to move an appropriate application before the said Court which passed the said preliminary decree or the executing Court as the case may be. If such an application is filed within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order, the said Court should consider it sympathetically and start acting on it in accordance with the provisions of law. 12. Thus Writ Petition No. 2791 of 1988 stands allowed with costs which is payable by respondent No. 1. The Writ Petition No. 5477 of 1988 stands disposed of with the observations made above. No order as to costs. P.A. to give authenticated copy of this order to the parties concerned. -----