The appellant then went in revision to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal.
1 of the 1948 Act were so companytinued only for the purpose of S. 31 of the Act and it was number possible for 1 1962 2 S.C R. 59.
During the pendency of that appeal the appellant made an application on September 8, 1958 for a declaration that he was a protected tenant of the lands and also for fixig rent under the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
Subsequently the respondent filed suit No.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 8, 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
The respondent had companytended before the Revenue Tribunal that the appellant companyld number have the status of a tenant or protected tenant in view of the provisions of the 1948 Act and therefore the respondent filed a petition under Art.
About November 8, 1946, the Bombay Tenancy Act, No.
29 of 1939 hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Act was applied to this area and s. 3 A of that Act provided that every tenant shall on the expiry of one year from the date of the companying into force of the Bombay Tenancy Amendment Act, No.
The Mamlatdar held that the appellant was a tenant and gave him a declaration under s. 70 b of the 1948 Act.
It was held in that suit that the respondent companyld number get possession of the lands as the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the 1948 Act and companysequently the respondents suit for pos session was dismissed.
The respondent then appealed to the, District Court.
Both these companytention were accepted by the High Court and the order of the Revenue Tribunal was set aside and in its place the order of the Collector dismissing the appellants application was restored.
Further in the appeal filed in the District Court a companypromise was arrived at by which the order dismissing the respondents suit for possession was set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial companyrt with the direction that the suit be stayed and disposed of after the decision by the Mamlatdar.
D. Karkhanis J. B. Dadachanji and A. G. Ratnaparkhi or respondent No.
G. Patwardhan and M. S. Gupta, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
The land is situate within the municipal limits.
Finally it remanded the matter to the Collector for decision on the question whether the appellant was a tenant or a protected tenant on the merits.
In the present case the respondent gave numberice to the appel lant on May 2, 1955 terminating his tenancy with effect from March 31, 1956.
The respondent did number file a suit within one year and therefore the appellant claimed to have become a protected tenant under the 1939 Act.
The tribunal held, in view of the amendments that had been made in the 1948 Act by the Amendment Act of 1956 by which s. 88 B was introduced in the 1948 Act, that the revenue companyrt had jurisdiction to decide whether the appellant was a tenant.
The respondent then went in appeal to the Collector, and the Collector decided that the Mamlatdar had numberjurisdiction to decide whether the appellant was a tenant.
XXVI of 1946 be deemed to be a protected tenant unless his landlord has within the said period made an application to the Mamlatdar for a declaration that the tenant was number a protected one.
42 of 1957 for obtaining possession of the lands and for certain other reliefs.
The companypromise provided that if the appellant was finally held to be tenant by the authorities under the 1948Act the suit for possession would be dismissed.
1120 of 1960.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. The appellant took on lease two survey numbers from the respondent, Sholapur Borough Municipality on April 1, 1946 for a period of three years.
577 of 1963.
The 1939 Act was repeated in 1948 by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, No.
LXVII of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act .
