JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The respondents have been served but they are absent. None present for them. Therefore, this writ petition is being heard and decided in their absence as it pertains to the year 1988. 2. The facts need to be stated for understanding the matter in proper perspective which are as mentioned hereinunder. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 moved an application before the Tahsildar, Indapur. It was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 1/81. It was for declaring them to be tenants of land bearing Gat No. 288 situated in village Varkute Budruk. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 averred therein that the said lands belonged to the petitioners but it was leased out to them since 1978 and was in their physical possession and they were cultivating it in view of registered rent note dated 19-8-1978. The notices were issued in the said proceedings and after recording the statements of the parties the learned Mamlatdar concluded that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the present petition did prove that they were tenants of the suit land. However, the present petitioners did not rebut the evidence adduced by them. He declared respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to be the tenants of the suit land. The said judgment and order was challenged by the present petitioners by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 31/82. The S.D.O. Baramati after hearing the parties and examining the record confirmed the judgment and order passed by Tahasildar. The said judgment and order was assailed by filing revision petition which was decided by the learned Member of M.R.T. on 26-11-1987 in the matter of MRT-P-V-14/85 (TNC. B. 144/85). The learned Member after examining the record concluded that the revision application was deserving to be dismissed. He dismissed it and that is being challenged by this writ petition. 4. Mr. Deshmukh agreed vehemently in favour of the petitioners and made reference to the judgments of three forums below. The learned Tahasildar pointed out in his judgment that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had adduced the evidence for proving that they were the tenants of the said land and were in physical possession of it and were cultivating it. The registered rent note is in support of their contention which has been mentioned above. The petitioners did not adduce any evidence for rebutting the said evidence. 1 and 2 had adduced the evidence for proving that they were the tenants of the said land and were in physical possession of it and were cultivating it. The registered rent note is in support of their contention which has been mentioned above. The petitioners did not adduce any evidence for rebutting the said evidence. When the document is registered there is a presumption in favour of that and when respondent Nos. 1 and 2 adduced it for corroborating their evidence, the learned Tahasildar was right in coming to the conclusion that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 proved that they were the tenants of the suit land. The learned S.D.O. also by giving cogent reasons confirmed the said judgment and order. When there were two well reasoned judgments and orders in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, there was hardly anything for the learned Member of M.R.T. to interfere with it and rightly the learned Member has done so. 5. When this Court has to exercise the jurisdiction in view of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it will have to inform itself whether there are reasonable grounds for interference with the judgment and order passed by the M.R.T. which confirmed the judgments and orders passed by two courts below. Thus, this petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule stands discharged. 6. The parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court. Petition dismissed. -----