( 1 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the first petitioner alone filed Form. 7 in her individual capacity and hence grant of occupancy right in favour of 3rd respondent by the Land Tribunal is bad in law. The grievance of the petitioners has no merit. The 3rd respondent is also shown as an applicant in the impugned order. The Land Tribunal held that it was a joint family tenancy claim. Hence, occupancy right is granted in favour of all the members of joint family. ( 2 ) ANOTHER grievance of the petitioners is that opportunity was not given to them to adduce evidence. The petitioners have filed written arguments is support of their case. Since the landlords have remained absent despite service of notice, the Land Tribunal accepted the tenancy claim and granted occupancy rights. Hence, petitioners cannot have any grievance in this regard. ( 3 ) THE Land Tribunal partitioned and allotted the tenancy right shares. In view of the decision reported in I. L. R. 2000 Karnataka 4809 (BALAVVA VS. HASNA), the Land Tribunal ahs no jurisdiction to partition the tenancy rights. It is only the Civil Court which has got jurisdiction to partition the shares. To this extent, the impugned order is bad in law. ( 4 ) THIS writ petition is disposed of modifying the operative portion of the land tribunal only in so far as it relates to allotting half portion to each. The occupancy rights are granted jointly in the names of the applicants before the Land Tribunal and they are liberty to work-out their respective shares of the tenancy rights before the competent Civil Court. --- *** --- .