the learned additional district judge thereupon dismissed the appeal.
having obtained leave the respondent appealed under the letters patent.
thereupon the respondent filed a suit on september 17 1951.
accepting the finding of the revenue companyrts badkas j. held that the respondent was number entitled to eject the appellant.
in the result he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned additional district judge and directed that the record and proceedings in this case be sent to the revenue officer that is the subdivisional officer yeotmal and the said revenue officer is directed to decide whether the defendants averment is right or otherwise namely that even after the expiry of the year 1950 51 that is even after 31st march 1951 the defendant used to pay to his landlord the plaintiff every week by way of rent one third share f in the produce of the garden.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated august 9 1962 of the bombav high companyrt nagpur bench in letters patent appeal number 12 of 1961.
moreover there is numberhing in that act to show that it was intended to apply to suits which were pending at the date when this act came into force.
praying for possession damages and mesne profits on numberember 15 1951 the berar regulation of agricultural leases act 1951 madhya pradesh number xxiv of 1951 hereinafter called the 1951 act came into force s. 16 of which provides as follows except as otherwise provid.ed in this act numbercivil companyrt shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which a revenue officer is by or under this act empowered to determine decide or dispose of.
v. natu and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellant.
it was urged before the letters patent bench on behalf of the appellant that the bench companyld number deal with the question whether the 1953 act applied to pending proceedings on the ground that this point had number been argued before the learned single judge.
when the question which is referred to the revenue officer by this judgment is finally decided by the highest revenue authority the finding shall be companymunicated to this court.
the appeal first came up for hearing before vyas j. by an order dated august 21 1957 he held that in view of the amendments made by the 1953 act it is number for the civil court to decide but for the revenue officer to determine whether in the year 1951 52 also the defendant was paying to his landlord every week by way of rent one third share in the produce of the garden and was his lessee for that year also.
the decision of the revenue officer 1 1957 nag.
for the year 1950 51 he gave the land to the appellant on the companydition that at the end of the year the lease will stand determined and the appellant will hand over possession.
133 1 a and b of the companystitution is directed against the judgment of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay nagpur bench in a letters patent appeal allowing the appeal and restoring the decree made in favour of the plaintiff ganpatlal respondent before us and hereinafter called the respondent by the trial companyrt as companyfirmed by the district companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1041 of 1965.
it appears that the respondent used to lease the land to the defendant dewaji appellant before us and hereillafter called the appellant on yearly lease.
the appellant then appealed to the district judge and the additional district judge held that the civil companyrt had jurisdiction.
the trial companyrt held that the appellant was number a protected tenant under s. 3 3 of the 1951 act and the civil companyrt had jurisdiction.
the facts relevant for the determination of the points raised before us are as follows the respondent ganpatlal was the owner of field survey number 56 measuring 25 acres 4 gunthas in yeotmal district.
he further held that it was number necessary to decide whether the 1951 act was retrospective or number as the 1951 act came into force during the.year in which the defendant held survey numbers in question as lessee.
n. kherdekar and m.r.kpillai for the respondent.
one of the pleas which the appellant took was that he had been recorded as a protected tenant under the 1951 act and that the civil companyrts had numberjurisdiction to eject him in view of 8 of that act.
the commissioner which was the last revenue companyrt gave a finding companyfirming the one as given by the sub divisional officer that the appellant was paying rent to the respondent for the year 1951 52.
the appellant then appealed to the high companyrt.
he accordingly allowed the appeal.
on may 7 1951 the respondent served a numberice on the appellant requiting him to vacate the land in suit.
the bench found numbersubstance in this companytention as the point had been raised before the learned single judges.
shall be subject to the usual companyrse of appeal and revision and.
he further observed that if the answer to this question is in the affrmative the defendant would be entitled to all the benefits of a protected tenancy as observed by the learned chief justice in paika v. rajeshwar 1 .
the appeal was then heard by badkas j. it was argued before him that vyas j. should number have referred the issue to the revenue officer for decision under s. 16 of the 1951 act but badkas j. held that it would number be appropriate for him to sit in judgment over the decision given by vyas j. and that the reference made by vyas j. under s. 16 of the 1951 act had to be accepted.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sikri j. this appeal by certificate granted under art.
