SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal assails the correctness of an order dated 1. 2. 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 24197/1998. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the Writ petition in question and confirmed the order of the Tribunal. It is relevant to point out that in this case the Tribunal had rejected the application for the grant of occupancy rights which had been preferred by the present appellant. We propose to confine this order only to those of the facts and issues that are strictly germane for the purpose of this appeal. ( 2 ) THE dispute relates to Survey No. 96 measuring 11 acres and22 guntas of Hullatti village in Haliyal Taluk. What is unusual in this cases is that the appellant contends that he was originally inducted into the land in the year 1965 and that a 'naukarnama' was executed by the then owners. This document is on record and we need to briefly record that the document states that the appellant has been engaged as a worker on an annual remuneration of Rs. 600/ -. There is a very unusual statement towards the end of this document which mentions that the appellant is not to inform anybody else, that he is a tenant/ryot On 16. 1. 1967 the land in question was sold to the present owners by the then owners under a registered sale deed. Sometime thereafter the new owner filed a suit against the appellant for injunction simpliciter. This suit was withdrawn and another suit was filed wherein the relief asked for was for possession and consequential injunction orders. It appears that the appellant contested that suit and took up the plea of tenancy. Among other documents, the appellant produced three rent receipts in support of his contention, that he was a tenant and therefore entitled to protection and was not liable to be evicted. The Court finally decreed the suit and the appellant carried the case further. In view of the land Reforms Act and considering the fact that a plea of agricultural tenancy had been set up, the Court took the view that the issue regarding tenancy would have to be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and that is how the Land Reforms Tribunal ultimately came into the picture. In view of the land Reforms Act and considering the fact that a plea of agricultural tenancy had been set up, the Court took the view that the issue regarding tenancy would have to be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and that is how the Land Reforms Tribunal ultimately came into the picture. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal after hearing the parties, rejected the claim forgrant of occupancy rights and one of the reasons for this was the naukarnama that was on record. The Tribunal after a careful consideration of the material placed before it held that the appellant was inducted as an employee and that he was not eligible for the grant of occupancy rights insofar as there was no tenancy created in his favour. The Tribunal obviously went by the state of the record which did not support the appellant's plea of tenancy insofar as even the relevant revenue entries did not conclusively indicate that he was eligible for the grant of tenancy rights. It was against this decision that the appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court. The learned single Judge again after hearing the parties held that the appellant did not qualify for the grant of occupancy rights and one of the main grounds on which the learned Single Judge took this view was because in the course of the hearing before the Tribunal though the appellant sought to rely on the three rent receipts in support of his plea of tenancy, he did not produce the original documents which had been filed before the Civil Court but only produced certified copies thereof. The learned Single Judge took a strict view of the procedural requirements and refused to attach any credibility to these copies and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is directed against this order. ( 4 ) AT the hearing before us, the appellant's learned Counselsubmitted that there is a basic error in the approach of the earlier forums insofar as they have proceeded on the assumption that the existence of the naukarnama totally disqualifies the appellant from contending that he is a tenant. ( 4 ) AT the hearing before us, the appellant's learned Counselsubmitted that there is a basic error in the approach of the earlier forums insofar as they have proceeded on the assumption that the existence of the naukarnama totally disqualifies the appellant from contending that he is a tenant. Learned Counsel pointed out to us that very often over a period of time the status of the parties changed and that this was one such instance wherein even if the person had originally been inducted as a worker, that there is documentary evidence to show that he was cultivating the lands and furthermore, that there was also evidence on record to indicate that he had been paying rent to the owners in kind. In support of this plea, learned counsel relied on the crucial documents namely the three rent receipts which are for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. What was pointed out to us was that the approach of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge was extremely technical and harsh and that in cases of this type merely because the necessary steps were not taken to transmit the record from the Civil Court to the Tribunal that the litigant cannot be penalised particularly when he has relied on certified copies of the documents. The contesting respondents are represented by learned Advocate Sri Hegde and he vehemently submitted that this Court should not take a tax or lenient view of this issue because the entire cases virtually hinges on these documents and where his client is seriously disputing the genuineness of the documents, that the production of certified copies is hopelessly inadequate. His submission was that it is. not a mere question of the court agreeing to over look the non-production of the originals but that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in totally rejecting those documents because when they are disputed, everything fro the handwriting to the signatures to the paper used etc. are of relevance. There is much substance in the objection that has been raised insofar as where there is a serious dispute about the genuineness of the document, it would be extremely hazardous to accept mere certified copies. are of relevance. There is much substance in the objection that has been raised insofar as where there is a serious dispute about the genuineness of the document, it would be extremely hazardous to accept mere certified copies. Appellant's learned Counsel submitted that when the reference has been made to the Tribunal that it is the duty of the referring Court to direct the record to be transmitted to the Tribunal and that the appellant is not at all at fault if this record was not before the Tribunal. Though the learned Counsel is right to some extent, we still need to point out that it was the duty of the appellant to ensure that the originals of these documents were produced before the Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge and the non-production cannot be easily condoned. ( 5 ) THE larger interest of doing justice to the parties required usto call for the original record and to ascertain whether the original documents namely the three rent receipts had in fact been produced by the appellant. We have received the original record and we have also perused it and found that the appellant did produce the three rent receipts. We have followed this procedure not because we approve of what happened before the earlier two forums but only in order to ensure that no injustice is done to the parties before us merely because of technical or procedural lapses. ( 6 ) THE appellant's learned Counsel submitted that these rentreceipts which have been issued by the earlier owners very clearly indicate that irrespective of the fact that the appellant was originally inducted as an agricultural worker on an annual payment of Rs. 600/- per year, that his status has thereafter changed to one of a tenant because the receipts clearly signify two things, the first that rent was tendered to the landlord and secondly that the rent in the form of agricultural produce was paid by the tenant. The learned counsel submitted that once this position is established, that it is for the respondents to satisfy the Court that the tenancy has been terminated or that it has come to an end and furthermore that this has happened prior to the appointed date. The learned counsel submitted that once this position is established, that it is for the respondents to satisfy the Court that the tenancy has been terminated or that it has come to an end and furthermore that this has happened prior to the appointed date. The submission is that in the absence of the respondents establishing these two factors, that the appellant does qualify for the grant of occupancy rights and reliance was also placed on some of the supportive documents to indicate that the appellant has in fact been in occupation of the land in question. ( 7 ) MR. Hegde who represents the contesting respondents namelythe present owners has submitted that the so called rent receipts cannot be relied upon by the Court. His point is that the appellant was inducted as an agricultural worker as is conclusively established by the naukarnama and that from that position, there is absolutely no ground on which the appellant can contend that the land owner changed his status. Mr. Hegde has seriously attacked the evidentiary value of these documents on a variety of grounds, the first of them being that the onus of proof lay on. the party who had approached the Tribunal for the grant of occupancy rights namely the appellant and he points out that if the appellant desired to place reliance on these documents that apart from whether he produced the originals or the certified copies, that it was more than necessary for him to have supported these documents through the requisite evidence. Firstly, he points out that there is no reference to these documents in the statement of the appellant recorded before the Tribunal. Secondly, he points out that the certified copies have been produced by the appellant's learned Counsel along with a written memo and that these have not been tendered in evidence. Thirdly and more importantly, it is his submission that if the Court is to rely on the documents and more importantly the contents thereof, that they would have to be proved in the manner prescribed by law. He relies on the all important fact that the appellant has not proved these documents and that they would have to be rightfully proved by the executant namely the previous land owner and that the appellant has not summoned that witness to prove the documents in question. Mr. He relies on the all important fact that the appellant has not proved these documents and that they would have to be rightfully proved by the executant namely the previous land owner and that the appellant has not summoned that witness to prove the documents in question. Mr. Hegde therefore submitted that the Court will have to totally discard these documents on the ground that they have not been proved. Lastly, what is pointed out to the Court was the ail important fact that the last of the rent receipts has been issued on 27. 2. 1967 whereas on that date, the party who has ostensibly issued the document was not the land owner because he had sold the land through a registered sale deed on 16. 1. 1967. The submission canvassed therefore is that these documents have been fabricated and that they should be totally rejected. ( 8 ) THE appellant's learned Counsel submitted that even if thereis some controversy with regard to whether the originals or the certified copies have been produced that since the Court is satisfied that the originals are on record that the appellant must be given a chance of tendering these originals before the Tribunal and secondly that he must be given a chance of substantiating these documents through oral evidence and that consequently, the case must be remanded. Mr. Hegde has strongly opposed this application on the ground that the litigation has been going on since the year 1967 before different Courts right upto the Supreme Court and he further submitted that this is a case in which the appellant had every opportunity of producing the original documents if he desired to rely on them but more importantly of leading whatever oral evidence he wanted in order to prove these documents and not having done so, that this is not the stage at which the Court should allow him any further indulgence. ( 9 ) WE need to record here, as indicated earlier, that theappellant's entire case rests heavily on these three documents which according to the appellant's learned Advocate are the strongest documentary evidence of the fact that his status had changed from that of an employee to a tenant. If the documents pass the test of scrutiny, this plea could certainly be upheld. If the documents pass the test of scrutiny, this plea could certainly be upheld. We are conscious of the fact that the onus of proof rested on the appellant, that the appellant had been through several legal proceedings prior to the hearing before the Tribunal and was therefore not a novice. Also, since these documents had been relied upon before the Civil Court and the higher Courts, it was very clear that the appellant and his learned Advocates were aware of the importance of these documents. Despite this, the documents were not referred to in the evidence of the appellant nor were they tendered in the evidence but were virtually'smuggled into the record on the basis of a memo and that too in the form of certified copies. Even that technicality would have been curable if the documents really helped the case of the appellant and that is why despite the view taken by the learned Single Judge, we took a charitable and broader view and examined the documents disregarding the many other impediments. More importantly, the documents on their own could not avail the appellant's case unless there is supportive oral evidence and the most important aspect is with regard to the proof of these documents. These documents had to be proved by the previous owner from whom they are alleged to have originated. No reason is given as to why this person was not summoned as a witness to not only prove the documents but more importantly to satisfy the Court that the appellant had been treated by him as his tenant and not as a worker. The appellant's learned counsel did volunteer the explanation by pointing out that the previous owner is after all the landlord and that it is unlikely that he would support the appellant. On the facts of this case, we find this explanation to be totally worthless because the previous owner if he had conferred tenancy on the appellant as is contended before us would certainly have been a person well disposed towards the appellant and secondly, since he was no longer the landlord there was no conflict or hostility that would have subsisted between the parties. We have done a careful analysis of this aspect of the case because Mr. We have done a careful analysis of this aspect of the case because Mr. Hegde has strongly capitalised on the fact that the appellant has deliberately kept back the previous owner for a motivated reason because Mr. Hegde's submission is that the documents have been fabricated and that the previous land owner would have never owned upto them. On a total appraisal of this aspect of the case, we need to record that the non-examination of the earlier owner cannot be construed as inadvertent or accidental and that being the position, the non-examination of this person would also lead to an adverse inference in law. It is very clear to us that had the witnesses in question !been summoned, he would not have supported the appellant's case and the reason for it is as follows. ( 10 ) IN the course of the arguments, the respondents' learnedadvocate drew our attention to the all important fact that the last of the three documents is dated 27. 2. 1967 which is about one -and - half months after the date on which the land had been sold. While the appellant's learned Advocate contended that this was a rent in respect of the arrears of rent for the previous year. We find it impossible to accept this explanation because even assuming there were some arrears as contended, they would never have been tendered one-and-half months after the party had ceased to be the landlord. What is crucial in law is the fact that on 27. 2. 1967 the signatory to that documents was no longer the said owner and that therefore disqualified him in law from signing in that capacity or issuing any such documents. The only straight and irresistible inference that follows is that the document in question has been fabricated. We are supported in this view because a perusal of the pleadings will indicate that on the basis of the nawkarnama, the appellant only had the status of a person working on the lands and cultivating them in exchange for an annual salary. When the present owners filed a suit for possession, under normal circumstances the appellant would have had no defence and in order to support the plea of tenancy which was put forward as a defence, these documents were obviously created. When the present owners filed a suit for possession, under normal circumstances the appellant would have had no defence and in order to support the plea of tenancy which was put forward as a defence, these documents were obviously created. If one of the documents has, in the circumstances indicated by us been obviously fabricated, there is virtually no ground on which one can hold that the identical two earlier ones are any different. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid finding makes a considerable difference to thelast plea put forward on behalf of the appellant namely that he should have an opportunity of proving the documents even at this last stage. We find that in other situations such a plea may have been tenable but in this case apart from the fact that the appellant had all the opportunity of doing so, what we need to record is that once it is as clear as day light that the documents do not pass the test of credibility, that they are not only suspicious but are fabricated, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity to the appellant to get somebody to cover. up for the facts. In our considered view, the position is virtually in defensible and that is really the ground on which we are constrained not to remand the matter because no useful purpose will be served by doing so. We need to record that where litigation has gone on for decades, that this Court must depricate the practice of mechanically remanding to the Tribunal as this is not in the interest of justice and not in the interest of parties and definitely against public interest. It is only in the select few cases where the overwhelming interests of justice require that a remand may be justified but this case does not come within that category. ( 12 ) HAVING regard to our findings, the order of the Tribunal andthe learned Single Judge are confirmed. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .