Mere revenue entries recording cultivation do not establish tenancy without specific pleadings and proof of legal status.

The petitioner claimed that his father, Nandkishor, was inducted as a protected lessee of agricultural land (Gat No. 193/2) in 1951-52 under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951

Following Nandkishor’s death in 1990, the petitioner sought fixation of the purchase price and conferment of ownership rights under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 ("Tenancy Act, 1958")

The Tahsildar (2005) and Sub-Divisional Officer (2008) dismissed the claim, finding no evidence of tenancy beyond mere cultivation entries in revenue records

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) affirmed these orders in 2011, holding that 7/12 extract entries reflected actual cultivation but not legal tenancy status

The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings via this Writ Petition

1. Whether the petitioner established a jural relationship of landlord and tenant to claim benefits under the Tenancy Act, 1958

2. Whether the petitioner could be recognized as a "deemed tenant" under Section 6(1) of the Tenancy Act, 1958, in the absence of specific pleadings

The court applied Section 2(32) and Section 6 of the Tenancy Act, 1958, defining "tenant" and "deemed tenant" respectively

It relied on the principle that the person asserting a tenancy bears the burden of proof

Under Jaichand Housilal Gujarathi v. Ananda Tanji Patil (1972), the court established that "deemed tenancy" under Section 6 is not a pure question of law and requires foundational factual pleadings

It further distinguished Jagannath Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2013), noting that revenue entries showing cultivation do not automatically prove the legal character of possession as tenancy

The court reasoned that the petitioner failed to produce any lease deed, rent receipts, or mutation entries evidencing the start or terms of the alleged tenancy

While the petitioner's name appeared in the cultivation columns of 7/12 extracts, the court held that such entries prove "actual cultivation" but not "tenancy status"

Regarding the "deemed tenancy" argument under Section 6, the court found the petitioner's pleadings deficient as they did not specify the date of commencement, rent, or the nature of induction

Citing Jaichand Housilal, the court emphasized that Section 6 cannot be invoked for the first time in writ proceedings without a prior factual foundation in the lower courts

The court concluded that the lower authorities' concurrent findings were not perverse, as mere long-term possession does not equate to a lawful tenancy

The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the MRT, SDO, and Tahsildar under Articles 226 and 227. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged