ORDER : This petition is filed by the landlord challenging the conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the land Sy.No.341 measuring 11 acres 33 guntas and land Sy.No.342 measuring 4 acres 36 guntas belong ED to one Gopal Kulkarni. 3. Gopal Kulkarni is stated to have issued a notice to the tenant Ramu Lad seeking for possession of Sy.No.341 and in response to the said notice Ramu Lad appears to have replied states that both he and Rasaba were in possession as tenants and they were entitled to continue as tenants. 4. After the issuance of the quit notice, however Gopal Kulkarni proceeded to sell Sy.No.341 to Ramu Lad. Thus, Ramu Lad who was a tenant in respect of Sy.No.341 measuring 11 acres 33 guntas become the owner of Sy.No.341 by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by the landlard. 5. On the strength of the sale deed, the Ramu Lad filed a suit in O.S.No.257/1965 seeking for injunction against Rasaba. In the said suit Rasaba took up the plea that, he was a joint tenant and purchase made by Ramu Lad was one without consideration and was therefore of no relevance. 6. This suit filed by Ramu Lad was ultimately dismissed on the ground that both of them were joint tenants and Ramu Lad had failed to prove his exclusive possession. 7. It is to be noticed here that in the suit Rasaba did not put forth the plea that pursuant to the purchase made by Ramu Lad, he continued to be tenant under Rasaba. If Rasaba claimed that he was a tenant under Gopal Kulkarni, in respect of Sy.No.341 as a consequence, he would also have had to necessesarily se up the plea that the tenancy that he had under Gopal Kulkarni continued under Ramu Lad. The fact that no such plea was raised by the tenant Rasaba indicates that he did not claim tenancy under Ramu Lad at all. 8. It is to be noticed here that Ramu Lad become the owner under registered sale deed in the year 1958 and from 1958 unless Rasaba proved that he was a tenant under Ramu Lad, the question of considering the said land to be tenanted lands would not arise. 8. It is to be noticed here that Ramu Lad become the owner under registered sale deed in the year 1958 and from 1958 unless Rasaba proved that he was a tenant under Ramu Lad, the question of considering the said land to be tenanted lands would not arise. Since Rasaba sought to set up the plea that Ramu Lad had acquired the property under sale deed without payment of consideration it is to be assumed that he was aggrieved by the acquisition of ownership of land bearing Sy.No.341 by Ramu lad and he was not claiming to be a tenant under Ramu Lad at all. 9. The Land Tribunal by the impugned order has relied upon the dismissal of the suit in which a finding had been recorded that the Ramu Lad and Rasaba were joint tenants in order to confer occupancy rights. 10. As stated above since for nearly 16 years i.e., from 1958 to 1974 Rasaba never acknowledged that Ramu Lad had acquired Sy.No.341 and that he had continued to be the tenant under him, the decree of the Civil Court holding that both of them were in joint possession would not come to the aid of Rasaba. It is to be stated here that once, Ramu Lad purchased the property, the question him being a joint tenant in respect of Sy.No.341 along with Rasaba would not arise and his status as tenant stood extinguish the movement he purchased the land. 11. I am therefore of the view that the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The Form No.7 filed by Rasaba is accordingly rejected. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.