JUDGMENT:- This Writ Petition challenges the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad in Case No.56/B/88-Nanded dated 29th November, 1989, whereby the defendants/ respondents are declared as tenants of the suit property. 2. The facts which are admitted at this stage are stated as below :- Present petitioners filed Special Civil Suit No.31 of 1979 for recovery of possession of Survey No.34 admeasuring 17 Acres, 25 gunthas land situated at village Sayal, Tq. & Dist.-Nanded. The petitioners have stated that they havc purchased the disputed land by sale deed dated 29th April, 1966 from one Mugappa Bapurao Wani, the owner of the land and they are entitled to get possession. The defendants appeared and stated that they arc tenants of the land and as such entitled to retain their possession. The issue of tenancy was raised and refereed to the Tenancy Authority under the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1950 (for short "H.T. & AL. Act"). 2-A. The Additional Tahsildar, Nanded while deciding Case No.87/TNC/Appeal/CR-5, File No.CR/l81/84 on 01.09.1986 has relied upon the evidence of defendant No.1 Mahadu and his witness Vithal Sakharam Jambge and also referred to Pahani Patrak for the years 1955 to 1960 and held that the defendants were tenants of the suit property since 1955-56. Same judgment and finding is further confirmed by the Leave Reserve Deputy Collector (Land Reforms). Nanded, in Case No.87/TNC/Appeal/ CR-5 decided on 30.03.1988. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal. original plaintiffs filed Revision bearing No.56!B!88-Nanded before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which also confirmed the findings recorded by the Tahsildar and the Dy. Collector and held that the respondents are tenants. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has considered Pahani Patrak for the year 1955-56 to 1959-60, 7/12 extracts from 1960-61 to 1969-70 and from the year 1970-71 to 1973-74, It also considered evidence of Mahadu _ original defendant No.1 and his witness. Defendant No.1 Mahadu stated that he had been member of the joint family and was cultivating the land in that capacity. Relying on the evidence the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the finding on the issue recorded. 4. Defendant No.1 Mahadu stated that he had been member of the joint family and was cultivating the land in that capacity. Relying on the evidence the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the finding on the issue recorded. 4. It is argued before me by learned advocate Shri. Godhamgaonkar for the appellant that no documentary evidence is produced on record regarding tenancy though it is case of the plaintiffs that the land was given on crop share basis (Batai). There is no evidence to show such agreement even by way of receipt of handing over share of the crop. He also referred to Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and also Sections 4 & 8 of the H.T.& A.L. Act. He argued that the document of Batai must be in writing and in absence of which the finding given by the tenancy authorities is illegal. He also said that there was no sufficient prima facie case to make a reference. It may be noted that in this writ petition what is challenged is order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirming the findings of the Tahsildar and the Dy. Collector. The writ petition is not directed against the order of the reference of the issue. 5. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act is as follows :- "107. Leases how made - A lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. All other leases of immoveable property may he made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Where a lease of immoveable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument or, where there arc more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee. Provided that the State Government may from time to time by notification in the official Gazette, direct that leases of immoveable property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession." 6. It may be noted that as per first clause lease of immovable property from year to year or any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent can be made by registered instrument. Second clause lays down that the lease of immoveable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. So, there can be oral lease accompanied by delivery of possession. Moreover. Section 5 of the H.T. & A.L. Act lays down provision as to when a person can be deemed to be a tenant for the purpose of said Act and it is dealing with the provision which gives presumption regarding tenancy of a person. 7. In this case the Courts have concurrently held that from 1955-56 the defendants are in possession of the property as Bataidar (cultivator on crop share basis) and in the circumstances of the case and as per Section 5 of the H.T.& A.L. Act, no illegality is committed in holding the respondent as tenant. No registered document or any lease deed is required as per the Section. 8. Considering totality of the circumstances, this writ petition has no merits. Same deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Rule discharged. 9. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, Civil Application No.579 of 2007 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. Petition dismissed.