On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned order as also the pleadings in the written statement, it appears that the trial Court was justified in declining to frame the issue in regard to the tenancy of Haribhau Gaikwad. On a perusal of paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has categorically pleaded that Haribhau Gaikwad was declared as a statutory tenant by an order of the tenancy Court dated 27.01.1970. If Haribhau Gaikwad, according to the petitioner, was declared as a statutory tenant by the Tenancy Court, there was no question of again framing an issue in regard to the tenancy of Haribhau Gaikwad in the present suit. The petitioner could have as well proved his case on the basis of the order passed by the Tenancy Court on 27.01.1970 holding Haribhau Gaikwad to be a statutory tenant as pleaded in paragraph 3 of the written statement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the trial Court was not justified in declining to frame the issue in regard to the tenancy of Haribhau Gaikwad. The order is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
