ORDER This revision petition is filed by the landlords of Survey No. 322 situated at Nilaji Village of Belgaum Taluk, measuring 4 acres 16 guntas, challenging the order of granting occupancy rights in favour of 1st respondent herein by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum in RALR No. 81 of 1987, dated 13-12-1989. 2. The records disclose that the 1st respondent herein filed Form 7 for granting occupancy rights in his favour for the land bearing Survey No. 322, situated at Nilaji Village of Belgaum Taluk, measuring 5 acres (actually measures 4 acres 16 guntas). The petitioners herein and respondent 4, viz., Anantha Nanasaheb Pawar, being the legal representatives of deceased Changunabai, are the landlords of the said property. The Land Tribunal on considering the material on record, rejected Form 7 filed by 1st respondent herein by its order dated 4-12-1986. Against the said order, 1st respondent filed statutory appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum. Both the parties were permitted to lead evidence before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, both the parties have led their evidence. The Appellate Authority after considering the material on record, including the additional evidence, granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 1st respondent by allowing his application in Form 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners. 3. Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the present Form 7 dated 20-12-1976 filed by 1st respondent herein is the second Form 7 filed praying for grant of occupancy rights; that the first Form 7 filed by 1st respondent was on 8-11-1974 for grant of occupancy rights for five other survey numbers; and that therefore, the second Form 7 is not maintainable. Secondly, he submitted that the 1st respondent is actually set up by respondent 4, viz., Anantha Pawar and that therefore, 1st respondent is not a real tenant over the property in question. He further submits that the appreciation of the evidence by the Court below is not just and proper, inasmuch as, the presumption arising out of the revenue records is not given due weightage by the Appellate Authority. Per contra, Sri Umesh R. Malimath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1(a) to (c) argued in support of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Per contra, Sri Umesh R. Malimath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1(a) to (c) argued in support of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Both the learned Advocates have taken me through the entire material on record. 4. It is not in dispute that the Form 7 praying for grant of occupancy rights filed by the 1st respondent on 20-12-1976 is his second application in Form 7. First Form 7 was filed by the 1st respondent on 8-11-1974 claiming occupancy rights over five other survey numbers. It is no doubt true that this Court in the case of Giriyappa and Others v State of Karnataka and Others and in the case of Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde and Others v Venkataraman Manjappa Hegde (deceased) by L.Rs and Others, has held that second Form 7 filed by the very tenant is not maintainable. Based on these judgments, Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the present Form 7 filed on 20-12-1976 cannot be entertained at all. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the aforecited judgments are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In Giriyappa's case, the tenant had filed Form 7 for the second time against very landlord after disposal of his first• Form 7 at an earlier point of time. In that view of the matter, this Court took the view that it is not open for the tenant to file second Form 7 after disposal of his first Form 7 claiming occupancy rights afresh. In Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde's case also, the facts are different. There also the second Form 7 was filed against the very landlord against whom first Form 7 was filed. Moreover in that matter, the tenant had described himself as owner of a disputed survey number in the first Form 7 and had claimed the very survey number as tenant in the second Form 7. Under such circumstances, this Court ruled that second Form 7 is not maintainable. 5. In the case on hand, the facts are entirely different. The first Form 7 admittedly filed by 1st respondent herein on 8-11-1974 against other landlord claiming occupancy rights in respect of five different survey numbers. The petitioners-landlords herein were not parties to the first Form 7. Under such circumstances, this Court ruled that second Form 7 is not maintainable. 5. In the case on hand, the facts are entirely different. The first Form 7 admittedly filed by 1st respondent herein on 8-11-1974 against other landlord claiming occupancy rights in respect of five different survey numbers. The petitioners-landlords herein were not parties to the first Form 7. Thus, the second Form 7 was filed by the 1st respondent on 20-12-1976 claiming occupancy rights for the land in question arraying the petitioners and respondent 4 herein as landlords. Thus it is clear that in both the Form 7, the landlords are different and lands are different. Thus, there is no prohibition for a tenant to file separate Form 7 claiming occupancy rights over a separate survey number belonging to different landlords. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 ('Rules' for short). The relevant portion reads thus: "Rule 19. Form of application and notice.-(1) The application under sub-section (1) of Section 48-A shall be in Form 7. The application shall furnish particulars of all the lands held under each separate tenancy in one or more than one Taluk in respect of which the applicant claims to be entitled to be registered as an occupant. (emphasis supplied) Thus, the bare reading of Rule 19 makes it clear that the application shall furnish particulars of all the lands held under each separate tenancy. The word 'tenancy' is described in Section 2(33) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), which reads thus: "Section 2(33).-"Tenancy" means the relationship of landlord and tenant". The word "tenant" is described under Section 2(34) of the Act, which reads thus: "Section 2(34).-"Tenant" means an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from landlord and includes. (emphasis supplied) Thus, the combined reading of Rule 19 of the Rules and Section 2(33) and 2(34) of the Act would make it clear that each relationship of landlord and tenant makes separate tenancy altogether. Thus, if a tenant cultivates the lands of two different landlords, there would be two separate tenancies. Thus, it is open for him to file two applications in Form 7 praying for occupancy rights against two different landlords. Thus, if a tenant cultivates the lands of two different landlords, there would be two separate tenancies. Thus, it is open for him to file two applications in Form 7 praying for occupancy rights against two different landlords. Thus, in my considered opinion, the second application in Form 7 filed by 1st respondent herein against different landlord for a different survey number is maintainable. 6. Even on merits also, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order of Land Reforms Appellate Authority. It is admitted case of the petitioners herein that they were all along working in different places in different establishments and that they were not residing in the village. 9th petitioner-landlord is a practicing Advocate at Pune. The respondent viz., Anantha Pawar, who is the brother of the petitioners herein alone was looking after the family properties for and on behalf of himself and his brothers i.e., petitioners herein. The aforesaid factual aspect is not in dispute. In support of his case, the tenant has examined two independent neighbouring witnesses apart from examining himself. Both the said witnesses have deposed in categorical terms that 1st respondent herein is cultivating the property in question as tenant. Though they are cross-examined by the landlords, nothing worth in elicited in their cross-examination so as to discard their evidence. Thus, the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses fully supports the case of the tenant, 1st respondent herein. Added to it, 4th respondent herein viz., Anantha Pawar, I who is the genitive brother of petitioners herein (one of the landlords) has clearly admitted before the Land Tribunal that, 1st respondent herein is cultivating the property in question to the extent of 5 acres as tenant. The said admission of Anantha Pawar assumes very much importance in this case, inasmuch as, even according to the petitioners herein, said Anantha Pawar himself was cultivating the property on their behalf by residing in the village. The very Anantha Pawar has deposed before the Land Tribunal that he had leased the property in question in favour of the 1st respondent herein on certain terms. Thus, the evidence of Anantha, coupled with other material on record abundantly make it clear that 1st respondent is in actual physical possession of the property as a tenant. 7. The very Anantha Pawar has deposed before the Land Tribunal that he had leased the property in question in favour of the 1st respondent herein on certain terms. Thus, the evidence of Anantha, coupled with other material on record abundantly make it clear that 1st respondent is in actual physical possession of the property as a tenant. 7. Merely because the revenue entries stand in the name of the petitioners would not mean that there is no relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties. The revenue entries do not take away the established case of the 1st respondent. The presumption arising out of the revenue records stand rebutted in view of consistent, cogent and clinching evidence relating to the 1st respondent's possession over the property in question as a tenant. 8. On the other hand, the 1st petitioner herein viz., Vasant Nanasaheb Pawar who is examined as B.W. 1 on behalf of the landlords admits in his evidence that he does not know about the topography and boundaries of the lands. He also admits that 4th respondent herein viz., Anantha Pawar was cultivating the land and that they were employed in different places of Karnataka and Maharashtra States; that the 9th petitioner viz., Pratabrao Nanasaheb Pawar, is a practicing Advocate at Pune. It is further admitted by B.W. 1 that they had agreed with the 4th respondent that 50 bags of paddy shall be paid by the 4th respondent to his brothers every year. No neighbouring landholders are examined by the landlords on their behalf. The said admissions by B.W. 1 would amply make it clear that they are absentee landowners and that they have never cultivated the land in question. It is also clear that one of the landlord i.e., 4th respondent herein, who was actually living in the village, was cultivating the other properties of the family and has leased the property in question in favour of the 1st respondent herein on certain terms. 9. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority is fully justified in granting occupancy rights in favour of 1st respondent herein by declaring him as a tenant. Even on reconsidering the material on record; I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.