2258 of 1955 B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 9, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
LXVII of 1948 hereinafter called the Act .
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these The appellant is the landlord and the respondent a protected tenant.
He then went in revision to the Revenue Tribunal, which was rejected.
XXXIII of 1952, which came into force on January 12, 1953.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The numberice was for one year as required by s. 34 1 and the tenancy was to terminate from after March 31, 1953.
The companytention on behalf of the appellant is that s. 34 1 gives a right to the landlord to terminate the tenancy by one years numberice, which was given in this case in December 1951 before the Amending Act came into force.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court raises a question of the interpretation of a. 34 2 A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, No.
The respondent thereupon appealed but his appeal was dismissed.
The appellant gave numberice of termination of tenancy to the respondent on December 31, 1951, under s. 34 1 of the Act.
153 of 1958.
The tenant then filed an application under Art.
was made to the Act by the insertion of sub s. 2 A to s. 34 by the Amending Act No.
P. Sinha, M. I. Khowaja and A. C. Dave, for respondent No.
The High Court allowed the application of the tenant, relying on its previous Full Bench decision in Durlabbhai Fakirbhai v. Jhaverbhai Bhikabhai 1 , where it was held that as the tenancy had 1 1956 58 Bom.
The landlord therefore made an application on April 7, 1953, under s. 29 2 of the Act for obtaining possession of the land to the Mamlatdar.
227 of the Constitution before the High Court and companytended that the provision of s. 34 2 A should have been taken into companysideration by the Revenue Courts in deciding the application of the landlord under s. 29 2 and that the revenue companyrts were wrong in the view they had taken that that sub section did number apply to the present proceedings.
March 27.
In the meantime, an amendment.
2 A , introduced by the Amending Act, would number apply to numberices given before the Amending Act came into force.
