- (1.) The short question for consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment of the High court is whether the appellant was a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.
(2.) The respondent instituted a suit for possession alleging that the appellant trespassed in the suit property and the appellant claimed that under an oral arrangement he was cultivating the land as tenant in 1962-63. It appears that the appellant had also issued a notice under Section 43 of the Act, in December 1962 for purchasing the landlord's rights. The suit was instituted in 1963.
(3.) The question of tenancy was referred to the authority under Section 125 of the Act. The Naib Tehsildar upheld the claim of the appellant as tenant but onappeal the Sub-Divisional Officer negatived the same on a consideration of the evidence in the case. The appellant preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal under Section 111 of the Act. The tribunal on a reappraisal of the evidence restored the order of the original authority. The respondent aggrieved by that order moved the High court for quashing the order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High court by the impugned judgment quashed the decision of the Revenue tribunal holding that the tribunal has exceeded its powers in upsetting the finding of fact arrived at by the Sub- Divisional Officer, the ultimate fact-finding authority.;