on that finding it set aside the decree passed by the learned district judge and restored that passed by the learned civil judge.
the suit property is agricultural land situate within two miles of the limits of the surat municipal borough.
1951 nagindas atmaram khatri the landlord gave a numberice to the defendant terminating the lease from march 31.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated april 23 1959 of the former bombay high companyrt in second appeal number 1359 of 1955.
the legal representatives of the defendant have preferred the present appeal.
on april 23.
on that finding he gave a decree for possession arrears of rent and mesne profits.
suit number 403 of 1952 in the companyrt of the subordinate judge surat for eviction of the lessee parbhubhai ratanji.
on december 28 1948 the 1948 act came into force.
on july 28 1948 sachin state became part of the stateof bombay.
thereupon the plaintiff preferred a second appeal to the high companyrt insofar as the decree of the district companyrt went against him.
on may 7 1946 nagindas atmaram khatri the respondent herein who was the owner of the said land gave a lease of the same in favour of the said prabhubhai ratanji for a period of six years.
as the defendant died on september 30 1955 his legal representatives were brought on record in his place.
against the said decree the defendant preferred an appeal to the district judge.
february 14 1964.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 120/62.
from that date the bombay tenancy act 1939hereinafter called the 1939 act was made applicable to the said area.
c. mathur j. b. dadachanji and ravinder narain for the respondent.
the learned district judge held that the landlord failed to prove that the suit property was within a distance of two miles of the limits of the surat borough municipality and on that finding he came to the companyclusion that the 1948 act applied to the suit land and set aside the decree of the trial companyrt awarding possession to the plaintiff but maintained the decree for arrears of rent.
act number 67 of 1948 hereinafter called the 1948 act to the tenancy of the land in dispute.
the suit was contested on various grounds the main companytention being that under the provisions of the 1939 act the defendant had acquired tenancy rights therein.
after giving the said numberice he filed reg.
the said appeal came up before a division bench of that high companyrt.
the appellants are the legal representatives of one prabhubhai ratanji.
it was part of the erstwhile sachin state.
s. k. sastri and m. s. narasimhan for the appellants.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. this appeal by special leave raises the question of the applicability of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act 1948 bom.
