SITARAM ABA PATIL Vs. SAKHARAM GANGARAM SAPTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has been served but she has remained absent and none is present for her and, therefore, this writ petition is being heard and decided treating her ex parte.

(2.) SHRI Karandikar vehemently argued and submitted that the M. R. T. was totally in error in respect of the facts and was in gross error in applying the law to the present set of facts and circumstances. He made reference to the judgments which have been passed by three forums below and submitted that a writ of certiorari needs to be granted in favour of the petitioners setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned member of M. R. T.

(3.) COUNTERING that Shri Thorat submitted that the learned member of M. R. T. rightly dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner. He pointed out that there was nothing on record to show that the present petitioner was ever the tenant of the said land. He submitted that the learned member of the M. R. T. has rightly appreciated the evidence on record in the revisional jurisdiction and has rightly applied the law and has rightly dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner.