JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The respondents are served but they are absent. None present for them. Therefore, this writ petition is heard and is being decided treating them ex parte because it pertains to the year, 1988. 2. The petitioners herein are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Member of M.R.T. in the matter of MRT-NS-XI-6/86 (TEN.S.252/86), Pune dated 12-4-1988 whereby the learned member of the M.R.T. allowed the revision petition filed by the present respondent and set aside the judgments and orders passed by two courts below (i.e. that of Avval Karkun and A.L.T. Satara and that of S.D.O. Satara). 3. The suit land is Gat No. 611 admeasuring 1 hector, 89 acres assessed at Rs. 16-83 out of an area of 80 ares, Southern side situate at the village Kumthe, Taluka Satara. Yeshwant Bhau Nikam, the present respondent, averred that he happens to be the tenant of the said land and the present petitioners are landlords. He averred that the original landlord Ganesh Walimbe, then the deceased, had agreed to sell to him all area of 80 ares out of the suit land, Northern portion and had executed a registered Sathekhat dated 18-5-1976 for a sum of Rs. 8,200/-. He further averred that the remaining portion of the land admeasuring 1 hector 9 acres out of the suit land, Southern portion was held by him as the lawful tenant in physical possession since 1976. He by the application made a prayer to the A.L.T. to declare him a tenant in respect of the area of 1 hector and 9 ares from Gat No. 466. 4. The judgment of A.L.T. and Awal Karkun shows that enquiry was made which revealed that depositions of present respondent and his two witnesses were recorded and thereafter the enquiry was postponed. In the meanwhile on 17-4-1985 Ganesh Walimbe has expired. The Advocate for the present respondent submitted an application on 4-7-1985 requesting the Court to permit him to bring the L.Rs. of the deceased Walimbe on record. Notices to all the heirs were issued and they were served. The enquiry was directed to be held on 22-7-1985, the future date. The present respondent was present on that date before the Court. The order was passed by the Court on 22-7-1985 directing that the said enquiry is to be conducted treating the present petitioners ex parte. Notices to all the heirs were issued and they were served. The enquiry was directed to be held on 22-7-1985, the future date. The present respondent was present on that date before the Court. The order was passed by the Court on 22-7-1985 directing that the said enquiry is to be conducted treating the present petitioners ex parte. 5. In the meanwhile, the said enquiry was transferred to the file of Additional Tehsildar, Satara, for further disposal according to law because one of the L.R. Beby Ganesh Walimbe was serving in the office of Tahsildar, Satara and, therefore, for avoiding the possibility of any complaint the enquiry was directed to be done by Additional Tahsildar. The Additional Tahsildar did not conduct the said enquiry and the said enquiry was transferred to the file of Avval Karkun and A.L.T. Satara who conducted it and passed the judgment and order by which he held that the present respondent was in lawful possession of the suit land. However, he held that as Ganesh Walimbe had died on 17-4-1985 and since no application was moved for the purpose of bringing his L.Rs. on record within the period of one month, the said application had abated and, therefore, it was necessary to dismiss it. Thus, he by his order dated 31-7-1985 dismissed the said application with costs. 6. The said judgment and order was put to challenge by filing the appeal by the present respondent. In the said appeal, the learned S.D.O. Satara held that Avval Karkun and A.L.T. had decided the issue of tenancy on the basis of R.T.S. proceedings only and there was no acceptable evidence to prove that the present respondent was the lawful tenant of the said land. He held that the said finding recorded by Avval Karkun holding the present respondent the lawful tenant of the said land was incorrect and illegal. He confirmed the finding of the Avval Karkun by which he held that as no application for bringing the L.Rs. was moved within time permissible by law, the said application had abated. He confirmed the said findings of Avval Karkun by recording his concurrent findings. 7. He confirmed the finding of the Avval Karkun by which he held that as no application for bringing the L.Rs. was moved within time permissible by law, the said application had abated. He confirmed the said findings of Avval Karkun by recording his concurrent findings. 7. While dealing with the challenge which was put to the judgment and order passed by S.D.O. Satara, the Member of M.R.T. held that in respect of the abatement the two courts below should have been liberal and should have held that the said application did not abate on account of no steps being taken for the purposes of bringing the L.Rs. of deceased Ganesh Walimbe within the period of limitation. He criticised the approach taken by the two courts below on this point and held that the said application did not abate. 8. He also pointed out in his judgment which govern his judgment and order as the tone of his judgment shows that one Beby Walimbe was serving in the office of Tahsildar, Satara and she was sufficiently strong enough to yield the influence on Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara and on account of her influence on Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara, his judgment was vitiated. He observed that the said Beby Walimbe was strong enough to "manage the affairs" and manage the judgments and order passed by the S.D.O. In view of that, he set aside the findings recorded by the S.D.O., Satara and his judgment and order. He expressed in his discussion and observation that such fear was expressed by Avval Karkun in his judgment and the learned Member of M.R.T. was convinced that the said fear was proper, justified and true. 9. Mr. Walawalkar submitted that when that was the approach adopted by the learned Member of the M.R.T., how his judgment can be sustained which was setting aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts below in favour of the present petitioners. Mr. Walawalkar submitted that there was no reason or material before the learned Member of the M.R.T. to come to this conclusion which was not only improper but was perverse and illegal also. 10. After carefully examining the records, this Court finds substance in the submissions advanced by Mr. Walawalkar. Mr. Walawalkar submitted that there was no reason or material before the learned Member of the M.R.T. to come to this conclusion which was not only improper but was perverse and illegal also. 10. After carefully examining the records, this Court finds substance in the submissions advanced by Mr. Walawalkar. There was absolutely no reason for the learned Member of the M.R.T. to come to the conclusion that the present petitioner No. 4 Beby Walimbe was strong enough to yield influence over S.D.O., Satara and to pollute his judgment and order. It is very difficult to digest it, when there is absolutely no material on record to justify even whisper about it. No where the trial Court expressed his fear that way. In fact, the said matter was conducted by Avval Karkun, Satara and not Additional Tahsildar or Tahsildar, Satara. Therefore, there was no reason for the learned Member of the M.R.T. to come to the conclusion that the judgment which was passed by the Avval Karkun, Satara was itself polluted. There was nothing on record to show that the said Beby Walimbe had done anything which was improper and which was likely to affect the proceedings which was never conducted before the S.D.O., Satara. The inferences drawn by the learned Member of M.R.T. in this context are not only improper but they are without any basis and perverse. Unfortunately, that has influenced his judgment and order. There was absolutely no ground for the learned Member of the M.R.T. to interfere with the judgments of the two courts below. Leave aside setting aside them. The courts should act on legal evidence and not on surmises or outside information. It should not allow its prejudices to interfere in its judgments and orders. 11. When such a judgment and order is in existence, which is improper and illegal, that has to be corrected by issuing the writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the petition stands allowed. The writ of certiorari stands issued in favour of the petitioners and the judgment and order which has been passed by the learned Member of M.R.T. and which has been assailed by this petition stands set aside. Thus the petition stands allowed with costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 12. The parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court. Petition allowed. -----