ORDER : E.S. INDIRESH, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10 th April, 2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.622/2012. 2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.53/2 measuring to an extent of 2 acre 31 guntas and land bearing Survey No.53/3 measuring to an extent of 28 guntas situate at Thimakapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysuru District. It is stated in the petition that, on 17 th November, 1973 (Annexure-C), the respondent No.4-Rajanna and late Giri Gowda, husband of the respondent No.5 had executed Sale- cum-Gutta Agreement in favour of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner herein had filed Form No.7A on 27 th December, 1998 before the respondent No.2 and in turn, the respondent No.2, after detailed enquiry, conferred occupancy right in favour of the petitioner as per order dated 09 th August, 2000. The said order passed by the respondent No.2 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.21280 of 2005 and this Court, allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the case on merits. On remand made by this Court, the respondent No.2 had passed order dated 14 th June, 2012 (Annexure-B), allowing the claim made by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3 to 5 have filed an Appeal No.622/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and the said Tribunal, by order dated 10 th April, 2017 (Annexure-A), allowed the appeal , consequently, set-aside the order dated 14 th June, 2012 passed by the respondent No.2. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition, seeking interference of this Court. 3. Heard Sri. A. Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Sri. D.C. Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 4. Sri. A. Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a tenant and the respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the land in question. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Sri. D.C. Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 4. Sri. A. Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a tenant and the respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the land in question. He further contended that the petitioner had entered into a Sale-cum-Gutta Agreement with the respondent No.4 and the husband of the respondent No.5 and therefore, the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order dated 10 th April, 2017 passed in Appeal No.622/2012 requires to be interfered with in this petition, by considering the recitals in the Agreement produced at Annexure-C, which makes it clear that the petitioner was the tenant under respondents 3 to 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also produced the deposition of the respondent No.4 dated 27 th December, 2001, wherein the respondent No.4 had admitted the tenancy of the petitioner and accordingly submitted that the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, requires to be interfered with in this petition. 6. Per contra, Sri. D.C. Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, by referring to the recitals in Sale-cum-Gutta Agreement produced at Annexure-C, had submitted that, the said Agreement is the Agreement of Sale and same cannot be considered as Gutta Kararu between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 and the husband of the respondent No.5. He also refers to the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of LOKAYYA POOJARY AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR (Karnataka) 4345 and submitted that the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-B is without any basis and the enquiry should not have been conducted under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, since the land in question is not a tenanted land and same was never been in cultivation with the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 disputes the deposition of the respondent No.4 as contended by the petitioner and submitted that the said deposition is not available in the original file. He further submitted that, there is a provision, providing for refund of Earnest Money by the petitioner and therefore, the Agreement produced at Annexure- C has to be considered as Agreement of Sale and not a Gutta Kararu. He further submitted that, there is a provision, providing for refund of Earnest Money by the petitioner and therefore, the Agreement produced at Annexure- C has to be considered as Agreement of Sale and not a Gutta Kararu. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the original records produced by learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, the same would indicate that the entire case revolves around the Agreement said to have been produced at Annexure-C. The title of the said Agreement is In the backdrop of these aspects, RTC extracts found in the records reveals the name of the petitioner herein as tenant. It is also forthcoming from the records that, Original Suit No.259 of 2009 has been filed by the respondent No.3 against the respondent No.4 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC., Periyapatna. It is also forthcoming that the spot inspection has been made in respect of the land in question and the report of the inspection reveals that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. I have considered the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 in the order dated 14 th June, 2012 (Annexure-B), which is passed after the order of remand made by this Court in Writ Petition No.21280 of 2005 dated 19 th June, 2008. The recitals made in the Agreement produced at Annexure-C reads as under: (emphasis supplied) 9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would submit that the said Agreement is only an Agreement of Sale and provision has been made for refund of advance amount in the said Agreement, on perusal of the same would indicate that the schedule property has been leased in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is paying Gutta to the respondents 3 to 5 and that too mentioning Rs.200/- per month. The recitals in the Agreement produced at Annexure-C would makes it clear that the said document though styled as Sale-cum-Gutta Agreement, however, it has to be considered as the lease deed made in favour of the petitioner. The recitals in the Agreement produced at Annexure-C would makes it clear that the said document though styled as Sale-cum-Gutta Agreement, however, it has to be considered as the lease deed made in favour of the petitioner. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 supports his contention based on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of LOKAYYA POOJARY (supra), perusal of the impugned order dated 10 th April, 2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru makes it clear that the payment of Gutta has been made by the petitioner to the respondents 3 to 5. 10. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, I am of the view that the claim made by the petitioner is just and proper. By looking into the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-B, wherein, it is stated that the Gutta has been paid by the petitioner in favour of the respondents 3 to 5, I am of the considered opinion that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had committed an error by looking into the title of the Agreement produced at Annexure-C, without considering the recitals made therein, which makes it clear that the land in question is a tenanted land. The ingredients declared in the case of LOKAYYA POOJARY (supra), is being complied with to confer occupancy rights. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER 1) Writ Petition is allowed; 2) Order dated 10 th April, 2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.622 of 2012 is hereby set-aside and order dated 14 th June, 2012 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby confirmed.