JUDGMENT:- Challenge in this petition is to the judgment rendered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (for short, 'MRT') in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction available under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "B.T. & A.L. Act") whereby findings of Tenancy Tribunal and Appellate Tenancy Tribunal were reversed and original applicant-deceased Vishwanath was held to be tenant. 2. Deceased Vishwanath filed an application before the Tenancy Tribunal, Ahmednagar alleging that since 1953-54 he was in possession of Survey No.142 (Gat No.161), admeasuring 1 acre and 33 gunthas, situated at Village-Khandke as a tenant. According to him, the land in question was owned by one Pandurang Tatya Edke who had leased out the same to him. Original opponent Laxman inherited said land after death of landlord-Pandurang. Therefore, the application was filed against said Laxman for fixation of purchase price of the land in question. It was his case that he used to give crop share to the landlord. The landlord resides at Ahmednagar and never cultivated the land in question. Therefore, he claimed right to purchase the same as owner under Section 32-G of the B.T. & A.L. Act. The opponent-deceased Laxman resisted the application. The case of the deceased opponent-Laxman was that Uttam s/o. Tuka was his tenant and thereafter, the land in question was taken by him for cultivation. He denied that deceased applicant Vishwanath was the tenant of the land in question. He submitted that there was no written agreement of lease and there were never any receipts issued in favour of the applicant towards the rent. Consequently, he sought dismissal of the application. 3. The parties led certain evidence before the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tenancy Tribunal reached the conclusion that applicant Vishwanath failed to prove his tenancy rights. The Tenancy Tribunal further held that as on the tiller's day i.e. 1-4-1957 said Vishwanath was not in possession of the land in question and hence, he was not entitled to purchase the land under Section 32-G of the said Act. The findings of the Tenancy Tribunal were upheld by the appellate Tribunal i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar. Feeling aggrieved, applicant Vishwanath preferred Revision Petition (MRT-AH-XII-8/84 (TNC : B.299/84) : Pune. The findings of the Tenancy Tribunal were upheld by the appellate Tribunal i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar. Feeling aggrieved, applicant Vishwanath preferred Revision Petition (MRT-AH-XII-8/84 (TNC : B.299/84) : Pune. The MRT, Pune allowed the revision application and held that applicant Vishwanath was tenant of the land in question and hence remanded the application to the Tenancy Tribunal for determination of reasonable price of the land under Section 32G of the said Act. 4. Original opponent Laxman @ Bhaiyya filed the instant writ petition challenging the findings of the MRT. In the meanwhile, original petitioner Laxman @ Bhaiyya demised and came to be substituted by his legal representatives. So also, original respondent Vishwanath demised and came to be substituted by his legal representatives. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel Shri. S. D. Kulkarni for the petitioner would submit that the Tenancy Tribunal gave correct finding after appreciation of the evidence. He pointed out that there was no written lease agreement in favour of the deceased respondent. He also pointed out that the revenue record did not support contention of the deceased respondent regarding his possession as on the tiller's day. He would submit further that the MRT committed serious error while reversing findings of the Tenancy Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, by re-appreciating the facts. He contended that jurisdiction of the MRT is limited and it could not have been exercised when there was no error of law on the face of the record. He would rely upon "Maruti Bala Raut Vs. Dashrath Babu Wathare & Ors." [ AIR 1974 SC 2051 ] and "Sita Ram Bhau Patil Vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (dead) by LRs. and Anr." [ AIR 1977 SC 1712 ] in support of the proposition that the MRT ought not to have reappreciated the evidence. He further submitted that the MRT committed error by giving undue importance to the admission of PW Uttam, who did not favour the case of the landlord regarding his own tenancy and stated that deceased Vishwanath was the real tenant. Learned Counsel would submit, therefore, that the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel Shri. Pallod for the respondents would support the impugned judgment. 6. Learned Counsel would submit, therefore, that the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel Shri. Pallod for the respondents would support the impugned judgment. 6. Before I proceed to consider the merits of the matter, let it be clarified that in "Maruti Bala Raut" (supra) the Apex Court held that jurisdiction of the of the revisional tribunal is limited to the extent of examining correctness of the findings of the tenancy tribunal and appellate tenancy tribunal and it cannot interfere in such findings by making reappreciation of the entire evidence. Similar is the view expressed in "Sita Ram Bhau Patil" (supra). Reliance is also placed on judgment of the Single Judge in "Gulabrao Sahebrao Shinde Vs. Sayaji Shankar Shinde" [ 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 873 : 2004(1) ALL MR 742]. The Single Bench of the Court held that the revenue tribunal was not justified in substituting its own view so as to over turn the concurrent finding of fact on the factum of lawful cultivation of the suit land of the petitioner as tenant by discussing the evidence on record and travelling beyond the pleadings of the parties. There is no difficulty in accepting the proposition that the MRT cannot, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, travel beyond the pleadings and undertake the entire exercise of re-appreciation of the evidence on record so as to substitute its own findings in the place of findings of the tenancy tribunal and the appellate tribunal. 7. Question in the present case is whether the MRT really travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties and did upset the findings of the tribunal and the appellate tribunal without any justification. The revisional jurisdiction under section 76 could be exercised by the MRT within the parameters contained in section 76 of the B.T. & A.L. Act. These parameters include examination of the order of the Collector on touchstone of sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Section 76 of the B.T. & A.L. Act. The relevant provisions may be quoted for ready reference as follows : "76. These parameters include examination of the order of the Collector on touchstone of sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Section 76 of the B.T. & A.L. Act. The relevant provisions may be quoted for ready reference as follows : "76. Revision.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1939, an application for revision may be made to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal constituted under the said Act against any order of the Collector on the following grounds only (a) that the order of the Collector was contrary to law; (b) that the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law; or (c) that there was a substantial defect in following the procedure provided by this Act, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice." 8. A plain reading of the above provision would make it manifest that if the order passed by the Collector is found to be contrary to the law then it can be interfered with by the MRT. Secondly, where the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law then also such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the Tribunal. The MRT would be within its legal bounds to interfere with the order of the Collector if such order is found to be perverse or that some material facts have not been considered by the Collector. 9. In the context, learned Counsel Mr. Pallod appearing for the respondents relied on judgment of the Apex Court in "Rahimatulla Rahiman Sarguru Vs. Bapu Hari Mane & Anr." [ AIR 1979 SC 1326 ]. The Apex Court held that the powers of revision entrusted to the MRT under Section 76 of the said Act are practically identical with the second appeal powers of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before its amendment. Similar view is expressed in "Dada Vishnu Chavan V s. Vishnu Bandu Patil & Ors." [1987 (Supp) SCC 635]. Needless to say, when the appellate authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer had acted contrary to law then the MRT cannot be a mute spectator to such illegal order. It has to interfere with the same. 10. Coming to the factual aspects of the present case, it is important to note that the landlord never claimed to be in possession on the tiller's day. It has to interfere with the same. 10. Coming to the factual aspects of the present case, it is important to note that the landlord never claimed to be in possession on the tiller's day. What he submitted was that Uttam Tukaram Chemte was in possession of the land in question as a tenant. The contention of the landlord was negatived by said Uttam. In his statement before the tenancy tribunal, Uttam Chemte clearly stated that his uncle - deceased respondent - Vishwanath since his father had demised in his childhood, brought him up. He further clearly stated that from 1954 his uncle - Vishwanath Chemte as tenant, was cultivating the land in question. He deposed that the landlord had given the land in question to him but when he was minor the land was cultivated by deceased respondent - Vishwanath. He clearly refuted the averment that he was tenant in possession of the land in question at the relevant time. This aspect was completely given go by when the decisions were rendered by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal. The tenancy tribunal gave much importance to the fact that there was no written instrument of lease, there were no written rent receipts and there was no documentary evidence to corroborate tenancy rights of the deceased respondent- Vishwanath. The tenant filed rent receipt dated 20th March, 1965 on record. The signature on the rent receipt was admitted by the landlord. The landlord did not enter into witness box. His Special Mukhtyar Shri. Keskar explained as to how the claim about tenancy is improper. 11. The MRT noticed that revenue entries disclosed possession of the deceased respondent- Vishwanath from the year, 195354 uptill 1960. It appears that somewhere in 1960 there took place consolidation of the lands under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thereafter, from 1960 till 1965 the revenue entries did not appear in name of the deceased respondent- Vishwanath. Still, however, it is nobody's case that the landlord personally cultivated the land in question during the relevant period. It is well settled that the continuation of the possession can be presumed unless dispossession is alleged and proved. Thereafter, from 1960 till 1965 the revenue entries did not appear in name of the deceased respondent- Vishwanath. Still, however, it is nobody's case that the landlord personally cultivated the land in question during the relevant period. It is well settled that the continuation of the possession can be presumed unless dispossession is alleged and proved. So, once it is found that deceased Vishwanath was in possession of the land in question prior to 1960, right from 1953 onwards, then it will have to be said that he continued to remain in possession of the said land. Uttam himself would not say that possession of Vishwanath was on his behalf. Conversely, PW Uttam supported the case of deceased respondent Vishwanath. The logical inference drawn by the MRT is, therefore, quite legal and proper. 12. Nextly, the MRT noticed the fact that the revenue entries in the name of deceased Vishwanath were never challenged by the landlord at any point of time. The landlord failed to explain the circumstances under which he executed the rent receipt dated 20th March, 1965. The evidence on record disclosed that the landlord never personally cultivated the land in question. The revenue entries pertaining to the period between 1952-58 revealed possession of deceased Vishwanath as a tenant and the same was the position after 1965 till 1969. There was sufficient evidence on record, therefore, to draw inference that said Vishwanath was in actual possession over the land in question as a tenant on the tiller's day. Inspite of the glaring record, the tenancy tribunal and the appellate tribunal gave undue importance to the fact that there were no entries in the name of deceased Vishwanath for the period between 1960 to 1965. The tenancy tribunal also referred to certificate issued by the Consolidation Officer to the effect that Gat No.161 (Original Survey No. 142/4) was owned by the landlord-Bhaiyya Pandurang Edke. The tenancy tribunal observed that the ownership certificate did not show in column No.6 thereof that the land was leased to anyone. The subsequent implementation of the consolidation scheme would not, in any way, impair the tenancy rights which had accrued in favour of the deceased Vishwanath. The tenancy tribunal observed that the ownership certificate did not show in column No.6 thereof that the land was leased to anyone. The subsequent implementation of the consolidation scheme would not, in any way, impair the tenancy rights which had accrued in favour of the deceased Vishwanath. I am of the opinion that the tenancy tribunal and the appellate authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer gave findings which were contrary to the law and as such the MRT was well justified in reversing the same while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The findings of both the tenancy tribunals were reflective of perversity. There is no patent error in the impugned order passed by the MRT and as such, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. There is no merit in the petition. 13. In the result, the petition fails and stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed.