The only question to be determined while adjudicating the present controversy in determining the challenge raised by the petitioners to the impugned orders dated 13.02.1996 (Annexure P-9), 03.08.1999 (Annexure P-11) and 21.02.2005 (Annexure P-14) is, whether or not the petitioners father paid rent in the form of batai tehai for the period commencing from Khariff 1986 till the filing of the ejectment application on 20.12.1989. It would be relevant to record, that the receipts allegedly attached with the written statement (which are available on the record of the instant writ petition as Annexures P-3 and P-4) were found to be not genuine by the Revenue Authorities. For the present, it is not even necessary for us to determine the genuineness of the receipts, Annexures P- 3 and P-4. At best, the aforesaid receipts pertain to the payment of batai tehai for the years 1989-90. The claim of the respondents in the ejectment application filed by them is from the khariff crop of 1986 onwards. No proof, whatsoever, was placed before the statutory authority either by the predecessor of the petitioners, or by the petitioners, depicting the payment of rent by way of batai tehai for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988. No such material has even placed on the record of the instant writ petition. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt about the fact, that the petitioners (or their father) on whose shoulders the onus to establish the payment of batai tehai rested, have failed to substantiate the same, before the statutory authorities and even before this Court.
